Rehabilitacion de Construcciones Existente Cogido Union Europea

Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen
European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA)

I-21020 Ispra – Italy
SPEAR
(Seismic Performance Assessment and
Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings)
INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP
An event to honour the memory of

Prof. Jean Donea
Ispra, 4-5 April 2005
Proceedings
Editors:
Michael Fardis, University of Patras
Paolo Negro, Joint Research Centre
2005 EUR 21768 EN

LEGAL NOTICE
Neither the European Commission nor any person

acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for
the use which might be made of the following information.
A great deal of additional information on the

European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server
(http://europa.eu.int)
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publication of the European Communities

ISBN 92-894-9923-0
© European Communities, 2005
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged
Printed in Italy
ii
SPEAR Workshop – An event to honour the memory of Jean Donea – Ispra, 4-5 April 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………...….iii
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………...……..iv
INTRODUCTION
M. Fardis, P. Negro………………………………………………………………………….v
List of Participants………………………………………………………………………….vii
PIONEERING EXPERIMENTAL ACTIVITY IN STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS – A
PERSONAL ODYSSEY
R. Severn………………………………………………………………………………...…...1
SEISMIC SAFETY SCREENING METHODS
P. Ozdemir………………………………………………………………………………….19
REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDING DAMAGES IN THE 2004 NIIGATA KEN
CHUETSU EARTHQUAKES, JAPAN
M. Inukai, M. Iiba…………………………………………………………………………..31
SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF A BASE-ISOLATED BUILDING IN THE 2004
NIIGATA KEN CHUETSU EARTHQUAKES
M. Tamari, M. Inukai……………………………………………………………………….43
SIMPLIFIED MODELLING ACCOUNTING FOR SHEAR AND TORSION
J. Mazars, P. Kotronis, F. Ragueneau...………………………………………………........51
A CODE APPROACH FOR DEFORMATION-BASED SEISMIC PERFORMANCE
ASSESSMENT OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS
M. N. Aydinoglu.……………………………………………………………………………65
PRACTICAL GUIDELINES FOR PERFORMING REINFORCED CONCRETE
STRUCTURE PUSHOVER ANALYSIS USING COMMERCIAL FINITE ELEMENT
SOFTWARE
W.T. Yeung.……………………………………………………………………………………………75
QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION ASPECTS IN SEISMIC FRAGILITY ASSESSMENT
S. Dimova, P. Negro, A. Pinto………………………………………………………………………87
SEISMIC FRAGILITY ANALYSIS OF RC STRUCTURES: USE OF RESPONSE
SURFACE FOR A REALISTIC APPLICATION
P. Franchin, A. Lupoi, P.E. Pinto, M. Ij. Schotanus…………………………………………….99
ULTIMATE STRENGTH AND FAILURE PROPERTIES OF FULL-SCALE WALLS OF
EXISTING RC BUILDINGS
H. Kato, K. Kusunoki, T. Mukai, M. Teshigawara, Y. Asano…………………………………111
SHAKE TABLE TESTS OF A 3-STOREY IRREGULAR RC STRUCTURE DESIGNED
FOR GRAVITY LOADS
E. Coelho, A. Campos Costa, P. Candeias, M. J. Falcao Silva, L. Mendes………………...123
FULL-SCALE PsD TESTING OF THE TORSIONALLY UNBALANCED SPEAR
STRUCTURE IN THE ‘AS-BUILT’ AND RETROFIITTED CONFIGURATIONS
E. Mola, P. Negro…………………………………………………………………………………..139
iii
FULL-SCALE BIDIRECTIONAL PsD TESTING OF THE TORSIONALLY

UNBALANCE SPEAR STRUCTURE: METHOD, ALGORITHM AND
EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP
F. J. Molina, Ph. Buchet, G.E. Magonette, O. Hubert, P. Negro…………………………….155
PRE- AND POST-TEST MATHEMATICAL MODELLING OF THE SPEAR BUILDING
P. Fajfar, M. Dolšek, D. Marušic, A. Stratan
ANALYTICAL ASSESSMENT OF A 3D FULL SCALE RC BUILDING TEST
S.-H.Jeong, A.S. Elnashai………………………………………………………………………….189
POST-TEST NONLINEAR ANALYSIS OF THE SPEAR TEST BUILDING
N. Ile, J.M. Reiynouard…………………………………………………………………………….205
CAPACITY-BASED EQUIVALENT LINEAR MODELLING OF THE SPEAR TEST
FRAME
M.S. Gunay, H. Sucuoglu…………………………………………………………………………..217
SEISMIC RETROFITTING TECHNIQUES FOR CONCRETE BUILDINGS
M.N. Fardis, D. Biskinis, A. Kosmopoulos, S. Bousias, A-L. Spathis………………………..229
DESIGN OF THE FRP RETROFIT OF THE SPEAR STRUCTURE
E. Cosenza, M. Di Ludovico, G. Manfredi, A. Prota…………………………………………..241
SEISMIC ASSESSMENT AND RETROFITTING OF A S SHAPE BUILDING WITH
EXPANSION JOINTS
A. Plumier, V. Denoël, L. Sanchez, C. Doneux, V. Warnotte, W. Van Alboom…………….253
RETROFITTING OF A 1960 BUILDING USING EC8 PART 3
C.Z. Chrysostomou………………………………………………………………………………….269
BUILDING VULNERABILITY REDUCTION BY EXISTING TECHNIQUES AND
NEAR FAULT EFFECTS
M.H. Boduroglu, E. Orakdöğen, K. Girgin……………………………………………………..281
SEISMIC RETROFIT STRATEGY FOR UNDER-DESIGNED RC FRAME SYSTEMS
USING FRP COMPOSITES
G.M.Calvi, S. Pampanin, A. Pavese, D. Bolognini…………………………………………….293
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The SPEAR (Seismic Performance Assessment and Rehabilitation) research project

was funded by the European Commission under the Growth Programme (1998-2002),
contract N. G6RD-CT2001-00525 (including Amendment No 1).
The SPEAR International Workshop was held at the JRC, with the logistical sup-
port of the JRC Public Relations Services.
The ELSA Laboratory, in the person of the Unit Head, Professor Michel Geradin,
hosted the event.
Ms. Elena Mola took charge of the technical organization of the SPEAR Workshop.
Ms. Elena Mola took charge of assembling and sending to print the present book of
Proceedings.
iv
INTRODUCTION
In most parts of the developed world, the building stock is ageing and in need of
maintenance, repair and upgrading. Moreover, in the light of our current knowledge
and of modern codes, in most of the world the majority of buildings are substandard
and deficient. This is especially the case in earthquake-prone regions, as seismic design
of structures is relatively recent even in those regions.
Although today and for the years to come most of the seismic threat to human life
and property loss comes from the existing buildings, the emphasis of earthquake engi-
neering research and of code-writing efforts has been, and still is, on new construction.
Policy makers have hoped that the threat posed by existing buildings will be solved
gradually by attrition (sometimes accelerated by urban renewal and redevelopment).
This is probably an optimal solution from the socioeconomic point of view, provided
that the rate of occurrence of moderate to strong earthquakes is much lower than the at-
trition rate of old buildings. Reasons for this approach include:
• the disproportionately high cost of seismic strengthening at the national or local
level, or at an individual building basis (although seismic resistance adds very little
to the total cost of a new building, the cost of seismic upgrading an old one, includ-
ing disruption of use and removal and replacement of non-structural parts, repre-
sents a very large fraction of the building’s replacement cost),
• the low premium that the market is willing to pay for higher safety, and
• the tendency of politicians to avoid tackling complex, socially sensitive problems.
Economics seem to be so much against seismic retrofitting, that, with the exception of
important administration buildings, hospitals, facilities critical for the post-earthquake
emergency period, etc., seismic rehabilitation of individual buildings is not normally
undertaken, unless triggered by special events, such as a damaging earthquake, a major
change in use, architectural remodelling, etc.
In addition to economic and political considerations, there are also technical reasons
preventing the mitigation of seismic risk posed by existing hazardous buildings. Tech-
nically the problem of assessment and retrofitting of old buildings is more difficult
than that of seismic design of new ones and has been tackled by the earthquake engi-
neering community relatively recently. It is not surprising, therefore that, although
many seismic assessment procedures have been proposed worldwide in the past dec-
ades for buildings, their codification is just starting. The situation is worse for seismic
retrofitting of buildings, for which codified criteria are still lacking. This lack of crite-
ria works as a disincentive for their retrofitting; and increases disproportionately retro-
fitting costs, as, without the legal coverage of a code or standard, engineers tend to
make decisions on the conservative side.
In response to the increasing importance of structural rehabilitation, a major part of
the new fib Model Code, which is currently under development, is devoted to structural
conservation and maintenance. More importantly, in recognition of the seismic threat
v
due to existing substandard buildings, the first standards ever for structural upgrading
address seismic rehabilitation of buildings. This is the case for Part 3: “Assessment and
Retrofitting of Buildings” of Eurocode 8: “Design of structures for earthquake resis-
tance”, which is the only one among the current set of 58 Structural Eurocodes devoted
to structural upgrading. It is also the case of the recent ASCE draft-standard on “Seis-
mic evaluation of existing buildings” and of the 1996 “Law for promotion of seismic
strengthening of existing reinforced concrete structures” in Japan.
On average, old unreinforced masonry buildings are seismically the most vulner-
able. Non-ductile concrete frame buildings are the next most vulnerable class of build-
ings. Compared to masonry buildings, they are characterized by a wider variety of
types, configurations and possible modes of behaviour and failure in earthquakes. They
also have a shorter history of exposure to earthquakes behind it, which, combined with
the continuous evolution in seismic design standards for RC structures, provides fewer
lessons from past performance. Moreover, although concrete buildings represent a
smaller percentage of the worldwide inventory of seismically deficient facilities than
masonry buildings, overall they are more important, as critical public facilities (e.g.
schools, hospitals, local or state administration buildings), as well as buildings with
higher rates and duration of occupancy (such as commercial and office buildings, ho-
tels, etc.), are of concrete construction.
The main provisions and technical rules concerning concrete or masonry buildings
in the recent (June, 2005) European Standard: “Eurocode 8: Design of structures for
earthquake resistance – Part 3: Assessment and Retrofitting of Buildings”, were devel-
oped and proposed within the framework of the research project SPEAR: “Seismic Per-
formance Assessment and Rehabilitation”. This project was funded by the European
Commission under contract No: G6RD-CT2001-00525 of its GROWTH programme,
awarded in 2001 and concluded in February 2005. The project consortium encom-
passed the major European Institutions in research, education and standardization in
the field of seismic resistance and upgrading of existing concrete or masonry buildings.
A group of leading Institutions from the U.S. and Japan interacted with the core con-
sortium partners during the course of the project. At the conclusion of the SPEAR pro-
ject a Workshop was organized at the Joint Research Centre of the European Commis-
sion in Ispra, to present the main findings of the project, as well as recent related
developments within the broader international partnership of the SPEAR project. The
event was dedicated to the memory of Professor Jean Donea, founding Director of the
ELSA laboratory of the Joint Research Centre.
In the mid-80’s Jean Donea recognized the growing importance for Europe of
earthquake engineering, conceived the ELSA laboratory and was instrumental in its es-
tablishment and success. He also promoted the development around the ELSA facility
of an Association of Structural Mechanics laboratories, that participated in the ELSA
activities and complemented its experimental work with analytical or design-oriented
research. The partnership of the SPEAR project, as well as other fruitful joint research
endeavours in earthquake engineering, were essentially outgrowths of that co-operative
activity. European earthquake engineering owes a lot to the vision and leadership of
Jean Donea.
Michael Fardis, Paolo Negro
vi
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Ayhan ALTINYOLLAR, ELSA Laboratory, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy

Gustavo AYALA, UNAM, Mexico City, Mexico
M. Nuray AYDINOGLU, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey
Mehmet Hasan BODUROGLU, Technical University of Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
Gianpiero BORZILLO, Regione Lazio, Protezione Civile, Roma, Italy
Eric BUZAUD, Délégation Générale pour l'Armement, Centre d'Etudes de Gramat,
Gramat, France
Gian Michele CALVI, Universita’di Pavia, Pavia, Italy
Paulo CANDEIAS, LNEC, Lisbon, Portugal
Nicola CATERINO, Universita’degli Studi di Napoli ‘Federico II’, Napoli, Italy
Christis CHRYSOSTOMOU, HTI-Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus
Ema COELHO, LNEC, Lisbon, Portugal
Marco DI LUDOVICO, Universita’degli Studi di Napoli ‘Federico II’, Napoli, Italy
Silvia DIMOVA, ELSA Laboratory, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
Matjaž DOLŠEK, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Amr ELNASHAI, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL, United States
Peter FAJFAR, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Michael FARDIS, University of Patras, Patras, Greece
Paolo FRANCHIN, Universita’ di Roma ‘La Sapienza’, Roma, Italy
Michel GERADIN, ELSA Laboratory, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
Konuralp GIRGIN, Technical University of Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
Nicolas Ioan ILE, INSA-Lyon, Lyon, France
Mizuo INUKAI, National Institute for Land and Construction Management, Ministry
of Land, Infrastructure Management, Tsukuba, Japan
Alessio LUPOI, Universita’ di Roma ‘La Sapienza’, Roma, Italy
Georges MAGONETTE, ELSA Laboratory, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
Damjan MARUŠIĆ, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Jacky MAZARS, INPG-Grenoble, Grenoble, France
Elena MOLA, ELSA Laboratory, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
Javier MOLINA, ELSA Laboratory, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
Khalid MOSALAM, University of California, Berkeley
Paolo NEGRO, ELSA Laboratory, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
Engin ORAKDOGEN, Technical University of Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
vii
Güney ÖZCEBE, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

Pinar OZDEMIR CAGLAYAN, Technical University of Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
Artur PINTO, ELSA Laboratory, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
Paolo PINTO, Universita’ di Roma ‘La Sapienza’, Roma, Italy
André PLUMIER , Université de Liège, Liège, Belgium
Jean Marie REYNOUARD, INSA-Lyon, Lyon, France
Roy SEVERN, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
Haluk SUCUOGLU, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
Masatoshi TAMARI, Mitsubishi Jisho Sekkei Inc., Tokyo, Japan
Fabio TAUCER, ELSA Laboratory, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
viii
PIONEERING EXPERIMENTAL ACTIVITY IN
STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS – A PERSONAL
ODYSSEY
Roy Severn
Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University of Bristol, UK
1 INTRODUCTION
I was honoured to be asked to give this Official Address to the memory of John Donea.
Beginning in 1990, I worked closely with him in the development and co-ordination of
European activities in the experimental aspects of structural dynamics until his retire-
ment from JRC Ispra in 1997. As we all know, he played a significant role in the crea-
tion of this ELSA laboratory in its early years, and his work laid the solid foundations
for it to become the world class facility it is today. Jean was not primarily an experi-
mentalist, rather a theoretician, working towards the development of computational
fluid dynamics - in which role I believe he saw the inevitability of increasing computa-
tion speeds and the consequences this would have for the reaction wall testing method,
depending as it does on the interplay between experiment and computation. We shared
together the knowledge that experiment and analysis are complementary contributions
to progress in every branch of engineering science, doing our best to dismiss the com-
mon fallacy that experiments are made to validate theory, when, in fact, both contain
assumptions and inaccuracies and must be taken together in searching for an acceptable
solution . As well as honour, your invitation has given me pleasure, because it has al-
lowed me to interpret Michel Geradin’s suggested title in terms of a 50-year personal
odyssey in helping to pioneer experimental activity in structural dynamics.
2 A BRIEF LOOK AT THE PAST
In the early 1950’s, the Southern European countries of Italy, Spain and Portugal were
making significant progress in the design and construction of large concrete dams, par-
ticularly those having the thin-shell form described as cupola or arch dams. The names
of Carlo Semenza, designer of the ill-fated Vajont dam in the Italian Dolomites, and
Lagina Serafim of the Cabril dam in Portugal, come easily to mind. British Consulting
Engineers were someway behind, but in 1957 a leading British firm - Sir Alexander
Gibb and Partners, became involved in the Tang-y-Soleyman dam in Iran, for which
the design included earthquake loading, possibly for the first time. Earthquake engi-
neering was a totally neglected subject in the UK at that time, requiring Gibb to request
the then recently created LNEC Lisbon, to act as consultants. It is clear from their
1961 report to Gibb (LNEC 1961) that LNEC also had no experience of such research,
1
and was required to create its own knowledge, skills and experimental expertise in or-
der to carry out this task, as the following quotation indicates.
“The tests made it necessary to install new testing equipment, to prepare special
setups and to develop measuring techniques not yet used. Several difficulties were met,
not only in performing the tests, but also in what concerns the practical application of
the theory on which the study of random vibration is based. These being pioneer tests
it is easy to understand that their accuracy is not completely satisfactory but they are
considered nevertheless, to furnish practical results of much interest, and to allow a
more clear understanding of the phenomena involved in earthquake action.”
There are many hidden messages in this quotation, and all of us have written in
such terms when we have become conscious that methods available to us are not able
to fulfil our expectations! From the LNEC report, I have selected three illustrations.
Fig. 1 is the result of their study of model scaling laws, which I believe to have been
original in at least one respect - that of the Cauchy number - with the conclusion that
with the reservoir empty it should be the same for model and prototype, but if the res-
ervoir water plays a part, and its restoring force is taken to be elastic, the Cauchy num-
ber must be satisfied for the water as well, the consequence of which is that the model
must be constructed of the same material as the prototype. Fig. 2 is a photograph of an
actual test.
Fig. 1 Similitude Laws Developed by LNEC Lisbon for dam testing (1957)
Fig. 2 LNEC Lisbon: dynamic test in progress
2
Fig. 3 Multi-point Dynamic Tests on a 1:200 model of the Hendrik Verwoerd arch dam
One very important consequence of this LNEC study was that the UK Institution of
Civil Engineers set up a Technical Committee, composed of roughly equal numbers of
experienced Consulting Engineers and academic researchers, to study the total problem
of the design of arch dams, at a time when digital computers were becoming available.
I was given the responsibility for dealing with earthquake issues. From the Commit-
tee’s report in 1968 (Dungar 1968), it is clear that not only had the use of thick shell
and 3D finite element methods been developed by this group for the first time and used
for static analysis, but that these computer-based methods had been employed also for
dynamic effects caused by earthquakes, including the hydrodynamic added-mass of the
reservoir water. However, experimental methods lagged far behind, being restricted to
the determination of natural frequencies and mode shapes of single-curvature perspex
models for comparison with those obtained analytically. A few years later it became
possible to make use of advances made in vibration testing by the aerospace industry,
where a multi-vibrator (9 maximum) electro-dynamic system had been developed for
design studies on the Concorde supersonic jet. Because the exciters were electroni-
cally driven, it was possible to develop a control system that guaranteed the commonal-
ity of frequency and phase between the different exciters - a requirement for the pro-
duction of pure mode of vibration - theoretically up to the number of exciters used.
This system was adapted for dynamic studies on a model of the Hendrik Verwoerd
Dam in S.Africa, to a design of Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners (Fig.3) (Back 1969).
Referring to Fig 3, analysis of the hydrodynamic effects of the reservoir water had
shown (Selby 1972 and Greeves 1991) that vibration reflection from the rigid model
walls was not significant if they extended upstream for 3H, where H is the height of the
model dam. This fact dictated the overall size of the dam/reservoir system. A little
later, for the purpose of measuring modal characteristics of prototype structures, a
similar system of multi-point excitation, effected by four contra-rotating mass vibrators
(Fig.4) was designed and constructed at Bristol and used very effectively on buildings
and dams in the UK and on dams in Switzerland.
3
Fig. 4 One of 4 eccentric-mass exciters on the Wimbleball concrete gravity dam
Fig. 5 Bristol/Athens Testpiece for shaking table performance studies
3 THE MORE RECENT PAST
At this workshop we are remembering John Donea and the contribution which he made
at JRC to the development of the ELSA laboratory and, more widely, to the advances
made in European laboratory studies in structural dynamics and earthquake engineer-
ing. The start date for ‘recent past’ will therefore be around 1990. I shall be parochial,
concentrating on what happened in Europe, although somewhat parallel developments
were taking place in Japan and the USA at the same time.
I do not know when the first shaking table or reaction wall was established in
Europe, but it is likely to have been sometime in the late 60’s or early 70’s. Shaking
tables would have been uniaxial and supported on an oil base with guides (as at
ISMES), or constrained against all but uniaxial motion by bearings, producing un-
known and unwanted forces. Those that were driven by electro-dynamic oscillators (as
at Bristol) had a frequency range of 10-1000Hz., but were difficult to control at the
lower end of this range. This period did, however, see advances in the broad subject of
control of mechanical systems and the development of hydraulic actuators for various
4
purposes, one of which was the operation of shaking tables and reaction walls, so that
by the early 1980’s, tables capable of motion in all six degrees-of-freedom (6DOF)
were in existence at Julich in Germany and at ISMES, Athens and Bristol amongst oth-
ers, having plan area dimensions varying between 9 and 20m and a frequency range of
0-100Hz. At CEA Saclay in France, a 25m, 3DOF table was being designed around
the same time, and a little later LNEC Lisbon chose to build a 3DOF table of in-house
design, in which the rotations were to be removed by massive torque tubes. In the UK,
Germany and France, these developments were driven to a large extent by testing
needs for the nuclear power industry. Hydraulic actuators were also being used for the
reaction wall type of test but computer speeds were not sufficiently fast to provide for
much more than a single point of excitation.
In 1990, the European Commission’s (EC) Large Installations Plan (LIP) estab-
lished working groups in many branches of science and engineering to determine what
large infrastructures existed, and whether there was need for augmentation at European
level. In the broad terms that concern us, a ‘Large Infrastructure’ was defined as an
expensive-to-run experimental laboratory which, if it occurred at all, did so in only a
few Member States, and which was probably not being fully utilised by that Member
State. In the course of its work, the LIP in earthquake engineering visited the World’s
major laboratories before concluding that there were sufficient existing shaking tables
for likely European needs, but that no state-of-the-art reaction wall facility existed in
any Member State. Significant to our own developments, an important rider was later
added to the first of these conclusions to the effect that if a co-ordinated European pro-
gramme in earthquake engineering was envisaged, then the actual performance capa-
bilities of the existing shaking tables should be assessed. It is, of course, the subse-
quent second conclusion that we recall in particular today, because John Donea not
only seized the opportunity to promote the building of the missing reaction wall here at
JRC Ispra, but he had, in his personal make-up, the ability to mobilise effectively the
talents of the many colleagues required to bring such a major project to completion.
Fig. 6 Uni-axial control using displacement feedback
5
Fig. 7 Uni-axial control using displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback signals
Fig. 8 NEFOREEE Theme 1: The CEA design testpiece having controlled non-linearity
Dissipative
device anchor
Fig. 9 NEFOREEE Theme 2: JRC-designed testpiece for complementary shaking table and
reaction wall studies
6
Fig. 10 NEFOREEE Theme 3: A seismic qualification test performed at ENEL-HYDRO and

the testpiece used
Fig. 11 Sub-structure testing of 3-pier bridge at JRC Ispra
Fig. 12 NEFOREEE Theme 4: EERC Bristol sub-structuring research – physical test set-up
and schematic diagram
7
Fig. 13 Multiple-support input test at ISMES on a 3-pier irregular bridge
4 THE STUDY OF EUROPEAN SHAKING TABLE CHARACTERISTICS
The Athens and Bristol laboratories were members of the LIP group, and in 1992 re-
ceived a contract from the EC to begin the study of European shaking table perform-
ance referred to above. The common testpiece of Fig. 5 was agreed, and identical ver-
sions built at Bristol for each laboratory. Its design was predicated on the need to test
each table to the limits of its capacity, particularly in its ability to generate and control
the three rotational degrees of freedom. This was made possible by vertical positioning
of a number of 1T steel plates so as to vary the centre of mass in the vertical direction
and hence the overturning moments. Before the actual programme could be started,
Athens and Bristol were joined by LNEC Lisbon and ISMES Bergamo, requiring one
of the testpieces to be moved between three laboratories, whilst one remained at Bris-
tol. After studies lasting three years, the following deficiencies were found, in varying
degrees, in all four tables (Crewe 2001).
− For testpieces that remained elastic, a satisfactory match between desired and
achieved input could be obtained, but the success of the matching process depended
on skilled operators;
− If the measured accelerations of the table were used for matching purposes, its dis-
placement was not controllable ;
− Small spurious motions of the table had a very strong influences on the response but
were difficult to remove ;
− All tables were controlled out-of-real-time and the control became unstable if the
properties of the testpiece changed
The common background to these deficiencies was the use of conventional fixed-gain
control algorithms. These are based on a linear model of both the shaking table itself
and the testpiece upon it, the parameters of the latter being fixed for the duration of the
test. Although the influence of the testpiece can be partially removed by fine-tuning of
the linear controller, this cannot deal with the non-linear effects and is limited by the
expertise of the operator.
8
Fortunately, it was found that the general field of control engineering had itself
been forced to address similar problems in non-linear robotics, and had developed
adaptive control algorithms in which the control strategy adapts to the changing char-
acteristics of the robot, in particular to its non-linear behaviour. In addition, digital
rather than analogue hardware had been utilised, as well as the use of recently available
increased computing power. A major contributor to this adaptive control development
was the Minimal Control Synthesis (MCS) algorithm, invented at Bristol University by
Prof. D Stoten (Stoten 2003). Six laboratories (now including CEA Saclay and JRC
Ispra) contributed to the removal of the four shortcomings listed above, and, having
removed them, were successful in obtaining from the EC a series of research contracts
in the following areas, all of which utilised the very significant achievements of real-
time control, which in practice means an accurate reproduction of the time-scale of the
actual event being replicated.
− The use of shaking tables to study non-linear behaviour of testpieces ;

− Substructuring on shaking tables ;
− Multiple support input ;
− The effect on testpiece response of spurious input motions ;
− Continuous pseudodynamic testing at reaction walls.
The importance of the first of these is that modern seismic design procedures utilise the
energy absorbing qualities of construction materials when they behave non-linearly.
The second is of great importance because a sometime disadvantage of shaking table
testing is that a small-scale model must be used in which important details cannot be
replicated properly. In the technique of sub-structuring, the more important part of the
system can be modelled at full or large scale on the table whilst the remainder is mod-
elled numerically in a computer. The interface between the two parts is still a subject
of international research, and a potential major application is the topic of structure-
foundation interaction. Hitherto, it has been very difficult to represent the foundation
itself on the shaking table, largely because its properties are non-linear. But with sub-
structuring, the various theories could be modelled numerically. For the third point
above, it is known that very large structures (e.g. bridges, dams and pipelines) receive
different ground inputs. To replicate this properly requires different shaking tables to
be precisely controlled in real-time with different input signals. Regarding point four
above, for the seismic qualification of industrial products, it is important to be aware of
the tolerances that can be allowed in the testing procedure.
The fifth of the above topics indicates that JRC Ispra had become a major contribu-
tor to the research programme, emphasising the essential complementary contributions
of the two types of experimental infrastructure. At this time, alongside the deficiencies
associated with shaking tables, the major deficiency at reaction walls was the large in-
terval between successive stages of the process, which made it difficult to cope with
strain-rate effects. By a combination of improved algorithms, faster computing speeds
and the use of MCS, this deficiency has been removed.
9
RDOF RDOF
1 2
Fig. 14 NEFOREEE Theme 5: ERC Bristol multiple support excitation study
5 THE SHAKING TABLE CONTROL PROBLEM
Having discussed what had been achieved by European laboratories, let us now look at
what the problems were. I concentrate on shaking tables but, as we have already seen,
what has been achieved for them also opened up new research areas for reaction walls.
I am also conscious that this talk is a personal odyssey, and that my JRC colleagues are
more fitted than I to talk on this matter.
5.1 Introduction
Shaking tables are of value in earthquake engineering because they are experimental
devices replicating the true nature of the earthquake input. This they do by applying
the ground motion to the base of the structure, thereby inducing realistic inertia forces
in every element of mass. It is these forces which generate the response displacements
and stresses.
The ground motion itself will generally have components in all 6DOF, although
only the time-histories of the three translations are usually measured at the earthquake
site, and quite often only one of these is specified for testing purposes. It might be
considered therefore that a table capable of controlled motion in one axis would be sat-
isfactory, but this begs the question of how motion in the remaining five are to be re-
10
moved. Early tables were of this single-axis variety, with physical restraints such as
guide rails or roller bearing supports. But such restraints introduce a pattern of forces
into the table which are unknown, and which modify the intended single-axis motion.
It can be argued that for purely research purposes this is not important - the investiga-
tor simply measures the motion input into the testpiece and uses this for comparison
with a corresponding theoretical analysis. But in many instances shaking tables are
used to certify industrial products for practical use against well-defined input motions.
These can be recorded time-histories of acceleration or displacement, artificial time-
histories which have been obtained from specified response spectra, precise sinusoidal
motion of the sine-sweep or sine-dwell variety, and random noise. All theses types of
input are used for specific purposes in which no corruption of the input can be allowed.
The majority of modern shaking tables are capable of controlled motion in all 6 DOF,
three translations and three rotations. An exception to this is the facility at LNEC Lis-
bon, in which the three rotations are effectively reduced to zero by steel torque tubes.
At present the motion of all tables is produced by servo-hydraulic actuators, usually
8 in number, and the fact that this is larger than the 6 DOF gives rise to the shaking ta-
ble control problem discussed below. Before doing so, it is noted that so-called Stew-
art platforms for vibration testing can be produced, in which the 6 DOF are controlled
by only 6 actuators, but these have to be arranged and oriented in a special manner.
Such platforms were devised for aerospace and mechanical engineering applications, in
which the rotations of the testpiece are possibly more important than the translations.
Stewart platforms have not been used in earthquake engineering for this reason
For seismic testing the most used input is that of translation in one, or sometimes
two or three directions, with rotations being small, and in most cases unwanted. It fol-
lows that for efficient utilisation of available actuator forces, the actuators must be ori-
ented in these translational directions, but arranged so that rotations can be either pro-
duced, or easily controlled.
5.2 Shaking Table Control
So what is the shaking table control problem?
5.2.1 Uniaxial Input

Consider first a table constrained to uniaxial motion (Fig. 6) where displacement is
used as the control parameter. The specified input, the command signal, is applied to
the servo-valve controlling the flow of oil in a single actuator, but is corrupted by vari-
ous forces associated with the electrical/mechanical components of the table, so that
the displacement signal recorded at the base of the testpiece, when compared to the
command signal at the summing junction contains a measurable error. This error is
then used iteratively to modify the input signal until the desired command signal ar-
rives at the testpiece. In essence, this is the shaking table control problem, but there
are two issues in particular which need to be addressed – measurements at the testpiece
and the time taken for the control calculations.
− Measurements at the Testpiece. The parameters to be measured at the testpiece

could be acceleration, and/or displacement, for comparison with corresponding val-
ues input to the servo-valve. Fig 7 shows a single-axis control in which velocity as
11
well as displacement and acceleration are used, although the velocity is not meas-
ured but is determined by integration of acceleration. Acceleration might be con-
sidered the better parameter to measure at the testpiece because recorded time-
histories of earthquakes are normally those of acceleration. However, accelerome-
ters used for shaking table measurements lose their accuracy at frequencies lower
than about 10Hz, whereas displacement transducers lose accuracy above this value.
The issue therefore revolves around the frequencies at which the table is required to
operate, and this in turn depends on the scale of the testpiece, together with the fact
that the recorded earthquake signals contain little energy above about 8Hz. If the
testpiece is at a scale of 1/N of the prototype, the requirements of dynamic simili-
tude require that the frequency content of the input be factored by N, thereby in-
creasing the frequency content of the input signal, and making it likely that acceler-
ometer measurements would be appropriate as a basis for the control process. But
if the testpiece is at large or full scale, displacement measurements would be more
suitable. Clearly, the ideal solution would be a control system which uses testpiece
displacements below some critical frequency, and accelerations above this. There
is, however, another important issue in this discussion. It is that if the displacement
of the table is known, the acceleration is uniquely defined, but the converse is not
true. Thus, if acceleration is the control parameter, it is possible for unknown drifts
of the table to occur, possibly beyond the displacements limits of the table and caus-
ing damage. The solution to these issues is addressed later, when it is seen that a
composite displacement is used, made up of a direct displacement below a critical
frequency and a displacement derived by twice-integrated acceleration above this
frequency. Suitable filters ensure that drift errors are removed (Stoten 2003).
− Time Taken for the Control Calculations. Some finite time interval is required for
both the measurement of the corrupted signal at the testpiece, and for the calculation
of the error used to modify the initial input. To comply with signal processing the-
ory, the rate of sampling at the testpiece should be at least twice the maximum fre-
quency to be measured, and since tables up to around 5 x 5m plan dimension can be
controlled in the 0-100Hz range, this frequency is more than 200Hz ; that is, a sam-
ple should be taken every 0.05sec or less. But when European research on these is-
sues began in 1995, the calculation of the error took far longer than this, and the
control system was therefore said to be ‘out-of-real-time’. Furthermore, the itera-
tive removal of the error will only be stable if the testpiece maintains its initial
physical state. If the testpiece begins to fail – a not uncommon purpose in earth-
quake engineering testing – an unstable control situation occurs. In practice, this
has meant that testing must proceed cautiously from the beginning by a series of
steps using factored input so as to avoid non-linear behaviour and damage to what
could be a unique or expensive testpiece. Such a constraint on shaking table testing
was a serious drawback, because modern economic design requires progressive
planned failure of non-critical components, making use of non-linear material prop-
erties, but avoiding collapse.
12
5.2.2 Multi-axis Input

Having discussed the problems associated with input from a single actuator let us now
turn to multi-axis input. If the number of permissible axes of table movement
(i.e.DOF) is equal to the number of actuators, the control problem simply requires a
repetition for each actuator of the arrangement shown in Fig.7. But additional prob-
lems arise when, as in most modern shaking tables, the number of actuators - probably
8 - is greater than the 6 DOF. In practical terms, this means that only certain configu-
rations of the actuators are possible, and unless all actuators are moved to a possible
configuration, some energy will be wasted in dynamically distorting the table itself.
Resolution of these difficulties requires a detailed study of the kinematics of the table
in order to show that it is necessary to be able to compute the 8 actuator lengths for a
given position of the table; this is referred to as the ‘inverse kinematic problem‘. Simi-
larly, an algorithm is required which will perform the converse problem, of calculating
the position of the table from knowledge of the length of each of the 8 actuators; this is
referred to as the ‘direct kinematic problem’. The inverse problem is capable of
straightforward real-time solution, which is fortunate, because a control signal is ap-
plied to each actuator to produce the required 6DOF displacement of the table. The so-
lution of the direct kinematic problem is mathematically more difficult, and although it
is not strictly required in the control process, it is useful in obtaining checks on the per-
formance of the control system.
Implicit in the foregoing discussion is the assumption that control of the table is
based on displacement, but the same is true of acceleration, although the measurement
of the 6 components of acceleration is not so straightforward.
It is seen that the control of a multi-axis shaking table is based upon its inverse ki-
nematic model. It is accurate if the model is error-free, which, in turn, depends on the
accuracy of the measured geometry of the total system – table and actuators. Because
there is a limit on the resolution of available surveying instruments for this purpose, a
technique has been introduced for correcting the measured geometry based upon the
use of the redundancy of the system
6 CURRENT PIONEERING EUROPEAN EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
To the five research themes made available by developments of the MCS algorithm,
the topic of “Complementary Nature of Shaking Tables and Reaction Walls“ was
added in the current EC-funded RTD contract NEFOREEE (New Fields of Research in
Earthquake Engineering Experiments). A brief summary of activities in this contract
will be of interest, but conclusions must await its completion later this year.
6.1 Theme 1: Controlled testing in the non-linear range ( Saclay, Lisbon, Athens,
Bristol).
The testpiece (Fig. 8), designed by Saclay and manufactured in France, has been suc-
cessfully transferred to Lisbon and Athens. It consists of a steel mass of 7000kg fixed
to the frame so as to have a frequency in the excitation direction of around 7Hz.
Transversely, the mass is guided so as to prevent motion. Vertically it is restrained by
13
a special device allowing a vertical frequency higher than 20Hz. Non- linearity is in-
troduced by a system allowing the frequency to change from 7 to 2.5Hz in 0.5sec, or in
an adjustable time up to 5sec. This system, which is of a pneumatic nature allowing
repetitive tests, can be directly controlled from the shaking table control room
6.2 Theme 2: Complementary nature of shaking tables and reaction walls. (JRC,
Lisbon, Athens, Oxford, Trento, Udine)
Two identical steel knee-braced frames (Fig.9) were constructed and instrumented at
JRC, one being transported first to Athens and then to Lisbon for shaking table tests.
These benchmark structures were designed to be protected by shear-panel energy-
dissipation devices or viscous shock absorbers, so as to introduce non-linearities and
strain-rate effects in an easily reproducible manner. Detailed studies have been made
in the high speed substructuring installation at Oxford for use in the numerical analyses
which accompanied the tests. Both Trento and Udine provided contributions to the de-
sign of the testpiece, the numerical analyses and selection of appropriate inputs for the
tests. Bristol had to withdraw from the programme because of the re-building of its
laboratory.
6.3 Theme 3: Reliability of Qualification tests performed on shaking tables. ( ENEL-
Hydro)
Fig 10 shows a typical qualification test performed at ENEL-HYDRO, and the test-
piece actually used in Theme 3. The main reference standard in this activity was the
IEC STD 60068-2-57 – Environmental Testing-Time History Method. It establishes
the fundamental requirements and procedures for the qualification of products exposed
to seismic, transport and aircraft induced dynamic excitations. It also lists require-
ments for the tests and acceptance criteria for the time-history used. The aim of the
NEFOREEE activity has been focussed on the study of the effects of the following pa-
rameters on the dynamic response of the artefact to be qualified:
− Effects of the number of points/octave compared with the frequency content and
with the natural frequency of the testpiece.
− Generation of seismic input through combination of different transient components.
− Effects of coupling of input excitations in case of multi-axis tests.
− Correlation requirements of the excitation and fulfilments of the requirements of the
Standards (i.e. IEEE 344).
6.4 Theme4: Substructuring on shaking tables (Bristol)

Fig. 11 is a reminder that substructuring at reaction walls has been a standard proce-
dure for many years, here concerned with a 3-pier irregular bridge in which the deck is
modelled numerically but with the attendant drawbacks of the conventional pseudody-
namic process. For shaking tables, the ability to substructure will make available sev-
eral new research areas, perhaps the most important of which is soil-structure interac-
tion, and as a result there is a world-wide research effort in this topic. The EERC
Bristol contribution is of a fundamental nature, aimed at formulating a generalised
14
framework within which dynamically substructured test systems can be modelled

whether they are single-mode, mixed-mode (e.g. a shaking table combined with a reac-
tion wall) or multi-mode (e.g. two or more shaking tables) facilities. Fig. 12 is a sche-
matic diagram of the arrangement, together with a picture of the actual testpiece being
used. In this research ‘proof of concept’ has already been achieved.
6.5 Theme 5: Multiple support input (Bristol)
Many of you will be familiar with Fig. 13. It was an innovative attempt by ISMES and
the PREC8 partners to use the 3 shaking tables at ISMES for experiments on a large-
scale model of a 3-pier irregular highway bridge. For a number of reasons it was not a
success, one principal contribution being the varying characteristics of the 3 tables and
their inability to adequately control the three input motions. The studies carried out at
EERC Bristol (Fig. 14) are of a more fundamental nature, made possible by recent fur-
ther developments in the MCS control algorithm. The testpiece arrangement is similar
to that of Fig. 12, but its functions are quite different. Thus far the system considered
has had two ‘ground degrees of freedom’ and two ‘response degrees of freedom’, es-
sentially because this is one degree of complexity higher than that normally considered
in design – there are two modes of vibration instead of one! Physically, the system
consists of two masses with three linear springs constrained in one direction. At pre-
sent, tests are being carried out on the strong floor as a precursor to tests on a smaller-
scale model of the 3-pier bridge of Fig. 13, using a MCS-controlled large multi- actua-
tor arrangement.
6.6 Theme 6: Continuous pseudodynamic testing with non-linear sub-structuring

(JRC Ispra)
Georges Magonette and JRC colleagues are better placed than I to deal with this, but I
shall be on safe ground if I quote from George’s contribution to a recent report.
“The writing and the implementation of the algorithms have now been completed and
parametric studies were achieved to evaluate the accuracy and the stability of the inte-
gration scheme. The continuous PsD testing is implemented by means of a synchronous
process with short control period (1ms) and small time step. This introduces some
challenging difficulties for the implementation of the substructuring, namely:
− If the analytical structure is complex, the analytical process is unable to perform

even an elastic computation during the control period of the experimental process
Different time steps are likely to be used by the two processes.
− The experimental process works usually with the explicit central difference scheme
since small time steps are in use. Again, when the analytical structure is complex,
it is not evident that using the same explicit scheme would allow to obtain stable re-
sults. Different time integration schemes are likely to be used by the two proc-
esses.”
15
7 THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION
7.1 Introduction
Even before the major events of 1994 and 1995 in Northridge (California) and Kobe
(Japan), respectively, the World’s facilities for the experimental aspects of earthquake
engineering research were, outside Europe, concentrated in the U.S. and Japan. But
these two earthquakes in economically rich countries set in motion the creation of sig-
nificant new facilities. Particularly in the U.S., many of the new facilities are directed
towards precisely those programmes of research, such as non-linear performance, mul-
tiple support input, and substructuring which feature extensively in our European pro-
gramme. In Japan the major move has been towards an ultra large shaking table capa-
ble of testing full-scale structures and large foundations, with concentration on
displacement and velocity performance rather than acceleration.
As a precursor to the U.S. programme, its Natural Science Foundation (NSF) com-
missioned SRI International (Directory 2001) to produce a ‘Directory of International
Earthquake Engineering Research Facilities’ which covered shaking tables, reaction
walls, centrifuges, tsunami wave basins, and full-scale field monitoring systems. This
Directory indicated that, outside Europe, Japan and the U.S., there were major facilities
existing in Korea, Taiwan, China and Canada.
7.2 The U.S.

The Northridge event threw real doubt on the supposed U.S. competence in some as-
pects of Earthquake engineering, and its Congress authorised NSF to establish an $81.9
million programme for the creation of a ‘Network For Earthquake Engineering Simula-
tion (NEES) between October 1999 and September 2004. The greater part of the fund-
ing was to be used to provide new or enhanced experimental facilities which would be
electronically networked, geographically distributed and have teleobservation and
teleoperational capabiity with shared access. But aside from such facilities, around
12% of the total award was to be dedicated to a management organisation which would
implement the NEES system, identifying, acquiring and integrating the system soft-
ware and hardware (Nelson 2000)
The over-arching management organisation is now described as NEESinc, which in
operating and maintaining the NEES programme provides the following services :-
− An IT infrastructure linking the 15 shared experimental facilities

− A system of centralised repositories for sharing stored documents, simulation pro-
grammes, software tools, etc.
− A national headquarters in Davis California
− A system of policies and procedures governing how the facilities will be operated.
Descriptions and illustrations of the actual facility awards made within NEES can
be seen on the NEES web-site
16
Fig. 15 Miki City – five of the ten horizontal actuators
7.3 Japan
In response to the Kobe event, the National Research Institute for Earth Sciences and
Disaster Prevention (NIED) and the Science and Technology Agency of the Govern-
ment (STA), began the process of constructing a very large shaking table capable of
testing structure at full-scale and to collapse, using 3D earthquake motion (Ogawa
2000). Before Kobe, Japan already possessed two tables that would be considered
large by standards elsewhere, being the 550T, 15x14.5m one-dimensional NIED facil-
ity, and the 1000T, 15x15m two-dimensional facility owned by the Nuclear Power
Corporation of Japan. However, these two tables were deficient in modern control
technology; neither were they capable of achieving the peak displacements and veloci-
ties actually observed during the Kobe event, which were 0.5m and 1.7m/s, respec-
tively. A further shortcoming of the two existing large tables was their response meas-
urement and data processing systems, the maximum number of channels being 300,
whereas in the new facility it was decided that 900 channels would be needed to moni-
tor the failure and collapse process which the anticipated new control algorithms would
allow. Concerning this new control, NIED and STA have sought advice from both the
U.S. and Europe, our own major advances using the Minimal Control Synthesis (MCS)
algorithm being one of the options studied and used satisfactorily in the Miki City
2004 commissioning trials.
The new shaking table at Miki City has plan dimensions of 20x15m and is con-
trolled in all 6-axes. It weighs 750T and has a testpiece capacity of 1200T. It is driven
by 5 actuators in each of the two horizontal directions and 14 in the vertical, producing
maximum displacement in the horizontal and vertical directions of 1.0m and 0.5m, re-
spectively (Fig. 15). Corresponding acceleration s are 0.9g and 1.5g, with a frequency
range of 0-15Hz.
The overall intention of this new Japanese facility is for use with full-scale build-
ings, but no details are available of the likely costs of such tests.
17
References
Back P, Cassell A, Dungar R, Gaukroger D, Severn R.. June 1969. The Orange River
Scheme; Seismic Loading of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam. Proc Instn. Civ. Engrs, Vol 43, pp
217-248.
Crewe A, Severn R. 2001. The European Collaborative Programme on Evaluating the
Performance of Shaking Tables. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London A. 359, pp 1671-1696.
Directory of International Earthquake Engineering Facilities 2001 SRI International Cen-
tre for Science, Technology and Educational Development, Policy Division. 1611 North Kent
Street, Arlington, Virginia 22209 USA.
Dungar R, Severn R.T. March 1968. Dynamic Analysis of Arch Dams. Instn. Civil Engrs.
Symp. On Arch Dams: A Review of British Research and Development, pp75-83.
Greeves E, Severn R. 1991. Dynamic Fluid-Structure Interaction. Chap. 7 of “Structures
Subjected to Dynamic Loads” Elsevier Ltd. ISBN 1-85166-582-X
LNEC Lisbon Report 1961 to Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners on Seismic Testing of the
Tang-e-Soleyman Dam
Nelson P, Pauschke J, Anderson T, Goldstein S. 27/28 Nov. 2000. Network for Earth-
quake Engineering Simulation (NEES). JRC Ispra Workshop, Belgirate, Italy.
Ogawa N, Ohtani T, Katayama T, Shibata H. 2000. Construction of a Three-Dimensional,
Large-scale Shaking Table and Developments of Core Technology. Ibid pp1725-1753.
Selby A, Severn R. 1972. An Experimental Assessment of Some Plates Vibrating in Water.
J. E’quake Eng. And Struct. Dyn. Vol. 1, pp189-200.
Stoten D, Gomez E. 2001. Adaptive Control of Shaking Tables Using the Minimal Control
Algorithm. Ibid pp 1697-1724.
Stoten D, Nield S. 2003. The Error-based Minimal Control Synthesis Algorithm with Inte-
gral Action. . Proc I Mech. E., Pt 1, J,Sys Contl Eng. 217, pp 187-201.
18
Seismic Safety Screening Method
P. Ozdemir1, M.H. Boduroglu1, A. Ilki1
1. Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
ABSTRACT: Seismic Safety Screening Method (SSSM) proposed for estimating the
seismic capacity of existing buildings is the adapted method from Japanese Seismic In-
dex Method (JSIM). The seismic capacity of a building is represented by seismic index
value, Is which is a function of strength and ductility. If the building has a seismic in-
dex, Is value lower than the required seismic capacity index, ID value, detailed struc-
tural analysis should be necessary for final decision. Seismic index value is the mini-
mum of the calculated values at the most critical stories and each direction while
required seismic capacity index is determined once for a building. There are two stages
in SSSM. The first stage is much easier and used as a quick safety check to list and sort
the inventory for the second stage. In this paper the second stage of the method will be
introduced. This method has been applied to 2401 medium/low rise reinforced con-
crete buildings in Zeytinburnu, Istanbul.
1 INTRODUCTION
Turkey is located at the boundary area where the Arabian Plate and African Plate are
moving north towards the Eurasian Plate. Many strong earthquakes have occurred
along the fault which is called North Anatolian Fault (NAF). Marmara and Duzce
Earthquakes in 1999 were two of them which caused catastrophic disaster in Marmara
and adjacent regions. Seismologists are pointing out the possibility of another big
earthquake hitting Istanbul at the western edge of NAF. When the huge existing stock
of buildings in Istanbul is considered, it is clear that it is practically impossible to carry
out detailed structural analysis for all of the buildings. In order to cope with the seismic
safety evaluation of large number of existing buildings, it is necessary to use simplified
techniques, which can predict the seismic safety of the existing buildings in relatively
shorter time. The expected outcome from such an analysis is to determine which build-
ings are at relatively higher risk of collapse. For such buildings further detailed struc-
tural analysis is necessary for retrofitting or consideration of regional urban renewal or
demolishment decisions.
Seismic Safety Screening Method (SSSM), is an adaptation of the Japanese Seismic
Index Method (JSIM) considering the building damages in recent earthquakes and
Turkish Earthquake Resistant Design Code 1998 (TERDC-98, “Specification for
Structures to be Built in Disaster Areas, Earthquake Disaster Prevention”). The original
method have been applied to a number of buildings damaged during 1992 Erzincan,
1998 Adana-Ceyhan and 1999 Marmara and Duzce Earthquakes. These results have
been used for adaptation of the original method to Turkey. This rapid seismic safety
19
evaluation method can be applied for structures having a story number 6 or less with
reinforced concrete frame, shear wall or dual frame-shear wall structural systems. The
calibration of several coefficients proposed in this method will further be done consid-
ering the studies carried out in various pilot areas like Zeytinburnu.
2 SEISMIC SAFETY SCREENING METHOD (SSSM)
The structural characteristics of the building are necessary for calculating the seismic
capacity index. A large number of the buildings in Istanbul have not received proper
civil engineering service and they do not have any civil engineering drawings of the
structural system. The inspection of a large number of buildings after recent earth-
quakes indicated that average concrete compressive strength is as low as 10 MPa and
the amount of longitudinal reinforcement bar is 1% of gross cross sectional area of
columns with the tensile strength of 220 MPa. Both longitudinal and transverse bars
are generally plain bars with large spacing between stirrups like 20~30 cm. With these
facts some assumptions were made to simplify the quick assessment procedure. For ob-
taining reliable results, the method was applied in a certain geographical pilot region,
Zeytinburnu, and the results were then compared with the results of more comprehen-
sive and detailed methods to calibrate several parameters that are used in SSSM.
2.1 Concept of SSSM
Basic concept of SSSM and the original JSIM is the equal energy concept. In case of
structures with relatively short natural period, dissipation energy is almost equal to
maximum potential energy of the elastic system as shown in Figure 1.
Q A
QE
C D
Qy
B E X
O ƒ Â
δ y δƒ Âe ƒ δ
Â
max
Y e max
Figure 1. Bi-linear model of elasto-plastic response.
Based on this assumption, the below equation can be written:
20
Q 1
Y = (1)
Q
E 2µ − 1
where QY = lateral yield force; QE = lateral elastic force; and µ = ductility ratio.
When we consider the relation between responses of elastic and elasto-plastic struc-
tural systems:
Y = 0.751 + 0.05µ = 1
Q
(2)
Q
E 2µ − 1 R
where R = ductility index.

When we write lateral forces with the term of weight of structure:
Q = CxW ; Q = C xW (3)
Y E E
where C = strength index.
Then if we substitute Equation (3) in Equation (2):
Q
Y = C = 1 ; C = CxR = P (4)
Q C R E
E E
where P = seismic capacity index.
It can be assumed that the structures with same seismic capacity index, P value,
have similar seismic performance.
3 SEISMIC INDEX, IS
Seismic index of a building, Is value, is calculated by using Equation (5):

I s = PxDxK (5)
where P = seismic capacity index; D = structural irregularity index; and K = time de-
pendent deterioration index.
Seismic index I should be calculated separately for both earthquake directions for
all critical stories of a building and the most unfavorable result should be compared
with the required seismic index ID. Based on this comparison the seismic safety of the
building can be estimated. If for any of the comparison cases I<ID then it is concluded
that the behavior of the structure is at higher risk of collapse and further detailed analy-
sis is necessary.
3.1 Seismic capacity index, P
During calculation of seismic capacity index, P, the vertical structural members are
classified into three groups as columns, short columns and shear walls. The definitions
of these groups are given in Table 1.
21
Table 1. Classification of vertical members

Ductility Index
Elements Definition
R
Columns h0 /D > 2.0 1.0
short columns h0 /D < 2.0 0.8
Walls reinforced concrete wall 1.0
h0 : clear height of column; D: depth of column
Most of the existing medium/low rise reinforced concrete buildings have practically
no shear walls. The calculation of P index differs according to the existence or ab-
sence of short columns in the structure. If there is no short column in the structure then
P index is calculated by Equation (6) or (7), otherwise by Equation (8).
P = (n + 1 ) ∗ (C c ) ∗ Rc (6)
n+i
P = (n + 1 ) ∗ (C w + a1C c ) ∗ Rw (7)
n+i
P = (n + 1 ) ∗ (C sc + a 2 C w + a3C c ) ∗ Rsc (8)

n+i
where n = number of stories of a building; i = number of the story where the calcula-
tion is done ( for a ground floor i=1); Cc = strength index of a column; Cw = strength
index of a shear wall; Csc = strength index of a short column; Rc = ductility index of a
column; Rw = ductility index of a shear wall; Rsc = ductility index of a short column;
a1,2,3 = strength reduction factors due to displacement compatibility as shown Figure 2.,
and a1=0.7 ; a2=0.7 ; a3=0.5.
lateral shear
A B
Cw
Csc
a2Cw
a1Cc
a3Cc
story drift
Figure 2. Displacement compatibility of vertical members.
3.1.1 Strength index, C

The strength index, C is computed with the lateral strength of vertical members based
on the assumption that beams are strong enough and the expected structural damage on
beams can not be as important as vertical elements’ damages. The lateral strength of
22
each vertical member is the minimum of the flexural strength and shear strength, eq.
(9).
( k Qmu ; k Qsu )min
C= (9)
∑W
k
where k C = kth vertical member’s strength index; k Qmu = flexural strength of kth vertical
element; k Qsu = shear strength of kth vertical element; and ΣW = total weight above the
story concerned. The calculation should be done for both directions.
For calculation of strength index, C;
• Number of stories of a building,
• Drawings of the selected critical stories under consideration,
• Size of vertical elements and their orientations,
• Tributary area of columns which will be used to define the column axial
forces,
• Type of slabs, height of the selected critical stories, and beam heights,
should be known.
In this method, following assumptions will be made if these are already not avail-
able.
• During the investigation if the material tests are not carried out, concrete com-
pressive strength can be taken as 10 MPa.
• The amount of longitudinal tensile reinforcement is 0.4% of gross cross sec-
tional area of columns and tensile strength of reinforcing bars can be assumed
as 220 MPa.
• Stirrups spacing in columns is not less than 20 cm and the stirrups diameter is
not larger than 8 mm.
• Total weight of the structure can be estimated by examining the type of slabs
and beams, usually 10-12 kN/m2 for the unit floor area (including live load for
the seismic design) is acceptable.
• The effect of cracks or deterioration of concrete or light corrosion of rein-
forcement may be neglected in the calculation of strength index, since it might
be considered by the estimation of time dependent deterioration index, K
value. But if extreme deterioration is observed, special consideration should be
given for material properties.
Moment capacity of a member should be known for the calculation of flexural
strength for column. The moment capacity of columns can be calculated by using the
approximate formulas given in Equation (10), (11) and (12) according to the level of
axial load. These equations are the same equations given in the JSIM.
N max > N > 0.4bDf c ;
C M u = (0.8at σ y D + 0.12bD 2 f c )( N max − N ) /( N max − 0.4bDf c ) (10)
N max = bDf c + a g σ y
23
0.4bDf c > N > 0;

(11)
C M u = 0.8at σ y D + 0.5 ND (1 − N / bDf c )
0 > N > N min ;

C M u = 0.8at σ y D + 0.4 ND (12)
N min = −a g σ y
where Nmax = axial compressive strength of a column [N]; Nmin = axial tensile strength
of a column [N]; N = axial load of a column [N]; at = area of tension reinforcement
[mm2]; ag = total area of longitudinal reinforcement [mm2]; b = width of compressive
side of a column [mm]; D = cross-sectional depth of a column [mm]; σy = yield
strength of longitudinal reinforcement [MPa]; and fc = compressive strength of con-
crete [MPa].
Ultimate shear strength for column can be calculated by using Equation (13) pro-
posed by Arakawa.
⎛ 0.053ρt0.23 (18 + f c ) ⎞
Q = ⎜⎜ + 0.85 ρ w x s σ wy + 0.1σ 0 ⎟⎟b. j
⎝ M /(Q.d ) + 0.12
C su
⎠
M / Q = h0 / 2 ; 1 ≤ M /(Q.d ) ≤ 3 (13)
at aw
ρt = x100 ; ρw = ; j = 7d / 8
b.d b.s
where ρt = tensile reinforcement ratio(%); ρw = shear reinforcement ratio; aw = total
cross sectional area of a set of stirrups [mm2]; at = area of tension reinforcement
[mm2]; b = width of compressive side of a column [mm]; d = effective depth of column
[mm]; s = spacing of stirrups [mm]; sσwy = yield strength of stirrups [MPa]; σ0 = axial
stress of columns, 0 < σ0 < 0.5 fc [MPa]; and fc = compressive strength of concrete
[MPa]
Ultimate flexure strength for shear wall can be calculated by the following equation.
W M u = a t σ y .lW + 0.5∑ (aWyσ Wy ).lW + 0.5 N .lW (14)

where N = total axial load of a wall [N]; at = area of tensile reinforcement at the wall’s
end zone [mm2]; aWy = total area of vertical reinforcement [mm2]; lW = distance be-
tween center of wall and end zones (wall end zones may be within the wall itself or
within an adjoining wall or in an enlarged section at the edge of the wall) [mm]; σy =
yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement [MPa]; fc = compressive strength of con-
crete [MPa].
The flexural strength can be calculated according to moment capacity of a member
and the inflection height along the member, Equation (15).
Qmu = (λ ∗ M u ) / ho (15)
24
where λ is the coefficient for inflection height, and h0 is the clear height of column or
wall. If column is not connected to the frame λ is equal to 0. If it is connected then on
the strong direction of column λ can be taken as 2 while on the weak direction it is 1.7.
When walls are under consideration, coefficient λ becomes 1.
Ultimate shear strength for shear wall can be calculated by Equation (16),
⎛ 0.053ρ te0.23 (18 + f c ) ⎞
⎜
W Q su = ⎜ + 0.85 ρ se .σ wy + 0.1σ 0e ⎟⎟be . j e
⎝ M /(Q.l ) + 0.12 ⎠
1 ≤ M /(Q.l ) ≤ 3 (16)
ρ te =
at
x100 ; be =
∑ A ; ρ = ah ; σ 0e =
N
; j e = lW
se
be .l l be .s be .l
where ρte = equivalent tensile reinforcement ratio(%); at = area of tensile reinforcement
at the wall’s end zone [mm2]; be = equivalent thickness of wall [mm]; l = wall length
[mm]; ΣA = cross sectional area of wall; ρse = equivalent lateral reinforcement ratio; ah
= cross sectional area of lateral reinforcement area [mm2]; s = spacing of lateral rein-
forcement [mm]; σwy = yield strength of lateral reinforcement [MPa]; σ0e = axial stress
of wall, σ0e < 0.5 fc [MPa]; and fc = compressive strength of concrete [MPa].
3.2 Structural irregularity index, D
Structural irregularity index is related with the irregularities in plan and irregularities in
elevation of a building. In the “Specification for Structures to be Built in Disaster Ar-
eas, Earthquake Disaster Prevention” (TERDC-98) seven irregularities are described.
Four of these are in plan and three in elevation. Since the seismic index, Is is a produc-
tion of three sub-indices (eq. 5) structural irregularity index is the modification factor
for the seismic capacity index, P as well as time dependent deterioration index, K.
If building is an irregular structure, the seismic index, Is could be reduced 40% by
the structural irregularity index, D. The details of structural irregularity index, D will
not be given in this study. This is an ongoing research project.
3.3 Time dependent deterioration index, K
Influence of structural defects such as deflection, cracking, and corrosion is taking into
account with time dependent deterioration index, K on the seismic index, Is. Site in-
spection is necessary for the estimation of the time dependent deterioration index, K.
Since this is an ongoing research project, it is adopted from the JSIM as it is. The
seismic index, Is could be reduced 30% by the time dependent deterioration index, K.
4 REQUIRED SEISMIC CAPACITY INDEX, ID
The required seismic index, ID should be calculated by Equation (17).

I D = P0 xBxZxU (17)
where P0 = index for basic seismic demand; B =index for regional seismicity; Z = index
25
for local soil conditions; and U = index for usage.

Index B should be taken as 1.0 for high seismicity and never lower than 0.5 in any
case.
Index Z varies for soil conditions from 0.80(for rock or stiff soil) to 1.00 (soft soil).
Usage index, U is 1.00 for residential buildings, 1.5 for buildings to be utilized im-
mediately after the earthquake.
The basic seismic demand index, P0 is the most critical parameter for the method. In
TERDC-98, Total Equivalent Seismic Load (base shear), Vt acting on the entire build-
ing in the earthquake direction considered will be determined by Equation (18).
WxA0 xIxS (T )
Vt = ≥ 0.10 xA0 xIxW (18)
Ra (T )
where W =total weight of the building (ΣG+nQ); A0 = effective ground acceleration
coefficient; I = building importance factor; S(T)= spectrum coefficient, Ra(T) = seismic
load reduction factor; and T= natural period of the building.
The lateral load carrying capacity of the ground floor, Qg can be expressed by
Equation (19) in the SSSM, and it should be greater than the base shear, Vt.
A0 xIxS (T )
Q g = Pg xW ; Q g ≥ Vt ; Pg ≥ (19)
Ra (T )
where Pg = seismic capacity index of ground floor; and W =total weight of the building.
When a non-ductile (Ra(T)=R=4.0), residential building (I=1.0) is considered,
whose natural period is relatively short and nearly matching with soil’s natural period
(S(T)=2.5) and located on seismic zone 1 (A0 =0.40), its seismic capacity index of
ground floor (Pg) should be equal to or greater than 0.25.
⎛ 0.40 x1.00 x 2.5 ⎞
Pg ≥ ⎜ = 0.25 ⎟ (20)
⎝ 4 ⎠
If we calculate the seismic index, Is for the same case with assuming structural ir-
regularity index, D and time dependent deterioration index, K equal to 1.0 we can say
that Is should be equal to or greater than 0.25. Then; the required seismic index, ID
value should be equal to 0.25 at least because the seismic index, Is value will be judged
against to the required seismic index, ID value. If we repeat the same conditions (B=1;
Z=1; U=1) in Equation (17) to calculate ID, the result implies that P0 should be equal to
0.25 as the first approach.
Is ≥ ID
(21)
(I s = 0.25 x1.0 x1.0 ) ≥ (I D = P0 x1.0 x.1.0 x1.0 )
The value of 0.25 is very conservative as a basic seismic demand index P0 in case
of buildings with high ductility. For calibration of this index, a pilot study was carried
out in Zeytinburnu, Istanbul.
26
5 PILOT REGION STUDY
The SSSM is applied to 2401 buildings in Zeytinburnu, Istanbul. The cumulative fre-
quency distribution of the seismic capacity index values of these buildings are given in
Figure 3.
Cumulative Frequency Distrubution
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Frequency (Pmin )
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55
Seismic Capacity Index, P min
Figure 3. The cumulative frequency distribution of the minimum seismic capacity index, Pmin
values of 2401RC building in Zeytinburnu
The value of the seismic capacity index, P has a fundamentally important effect on
the decisions about the basic seismic demand index, P0.
For the calibration of the SSSM, the results of nonlinear static analysis carried out
for 12 of these buildings are utilized. During the nonlinear analyses, actual (as-built)
structural characteristics of these buildings are used for input. During all steps of
nonlinear analysis, the displacement profile is taken from the shape of the first mode in
the corresponding direction. This assumption does not cause misleading results, be-
cause 12 buildings among 2401 buildings were chosen such that the effects of higher
modes were minimal. Plastic hinge lengths of columns and beams were assumed as
half of the section depth (h/2). From the results of these analyses, base shear force ca-
pacities corresponding to collapse prevention performance level were determined for
each building. Then the ratios of base shear force capacity to structural weight were
calculated. The ratios for x and y directions (Vx/W, Vy/W) and the structural seismic ca-
pacity indices (Px, Py), which are the ratios of strength indices to the structural weight
determined by SSSM are presented in Table 2.
27
Table 2. V/W and P values obtained by pushover analysis and SSSM

Building
Code Vx/W Px Vy/W Py Min(Vx/W; Vy/W) Min(Px,Py)
1597944 0.14 0.21 0.12 0.14 0.12 0.14
1610028 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.09
1597778 0.08 0.13 0.12 0.27 0.08 0.13
1597914 0.09 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.09 0.13
1597818 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.06
1609263 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07
1597776 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.24 0.14 0.15
1599432 0.09 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.10
1597884 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.13 0.09 0.11
1597799 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.11
1610164 0.18 0.28 0.22 0.23 0.18 0.23
1610166 0.11 0.17 0.08 0.12 0.08 0.12
The relationships between V/W and P values are shown in the Figure 4, below. As it
can be seen from these figures, the results obtained by using SSSM are similar to those
obtained by pushover analysis qualitatively. The minimum V/W values obtained by
pushover analysis are approximately 80% of the corresponding minimum P values ob-
tained by SSSM.
min (Vx/W, Vy/W) and min (Px,Py)
0.2
0.18 y = 0.80x
0.16
min (Vx/W, Vy/W)
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
min (Px, Py)
Figure 4. The relation between results obtained by using SSSM and pushover analysis
For the calibration of Po value, the structural performance indices for two principal
directions (Px, Py) are compared with the ratios of base shear capacities determined by
pushover analysis to the structural weight, (Vx/W, Vy/W). After the calibration, it is de-
termined that the main comparison index ID should be considered as 0.18.
During pushover analyses, for seismic demand, the NEHRP acceleration spectrum
for 50% exceedence probability in 50 years, is considered. Ss and Sl characteristic
spectral acceleration coefficients are determined by Bogazici University based on local
28
seismicity and ground conditions for each building. This information was used to esti-
mate the index for regional seismicity, B and index for soil-structure behavior (local
soil conditions), Z for the calculation of the required seismic index, ID. Usage index
was taken as 1.0 since all buildings are employed as residential purposes. Evaluation of
the buildings using SSSM is given in Table 3.
Table 3. Evaluation of the buildings using SSSM
Building Seismic index, Required seismic index,

Code min(Px,Py) D K Is ID
1597944 0.14 1.00 1.00 0.14 0.15
1610028 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.09 0.15
1597778 0.13 1.00 1.00 0.13 0.14
1597914 0.13 1.00 1.00 0.13 0.15
1597818 0.06 1.00 1.00 0.06 0.15
1609263 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.15
1597776 0.15 1.00 0.95 0.14 0.15
1599432 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.14
1597884 0.11 0.95 1.00 0.10 0.14
1597799 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.14
1610164 0.23 0.90 1.00 0.21 > 0.15
1610166 0.12 0.90 1.00 0.11 0.18
The estimation of the seismic safety of the building is based on the comparison of
the seismic index Is and the required seismic index, ID. It should be noted that the deci-
sion on the seismic safety is not based on the seismic capacity index, P and the basic
seismic demand index, P0.
According to the evaluation, for only one building out of twelve satisfies Is>ID con-
dition. This shows that for the seismicity of this region, only one building out of exam-
ined twelve buildings has sufficient seismic safety. For determining the seismic per-
formance of the remaining 11 buildings, a decision should be given based on a more
detailed analysis. It is interesting to note that according to the pushover analyses re-
sults, only one building, which was determined as earthquake resistant by the SSSM,
had sufficient seismic safety. For other buildings, which had Is values smaller than ID,
the results obtained by pushover analysis are also in good agreement with the results
obtained by SSSM.
CONCLUSIONS
A general conclusion after applying Seismic Safety Screening Method (SSSM) to the
buildings that are examined by the nonlinear static analysis is that SSSM can be used
for estimating the existing seismic safety levels for medium/low rise RC buildings
since the results obtained by the screening method and the structural analysis are in
good harmony.
29
The basic seismic demand index, P0 value appeared to be 0.18 in the pilot region.
But still much effort is needed to apply this method to a large selection of RC buildings
in different seismic regions, and verify the results by the structural analyses.
Future development for improvement of this method will focus on approximate
formulas given in Equation (10) to (16), and adding some experimental studies on sub-
structural elements besides to estimate the structural irregularity index, D and time de-
pendent deterioration index, K.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to express their gratitude to the graduate student Semra Sirin and
Ergun Binbir for the valuable effort in this study.
REFERENCES
Ilki, A., Boduroglu, M.H., Ozdemir, P., Baysan, F., Demir, C., Sirin, S. 2003. Comparison of
the results obtained by seismic index method and structural analysis for existing and retro-
fitted buildings. Proc. 5th nat. conf. on eq. eng., Istanbul, Turkey, 26-30 May 2003. Paper
No. AT-119
JSIM. 1977. Standard for evaluation of seismic capacity of existing reinforced concrete build-
ings. Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association, Ministry of Construction, Tokyo, Ja-
pan
Ozdemir, P., Ilki, A., Boduroglu, M.H., Sirin, S., Demir, C., Baysan, F. 2004. A modified rapid
screening procedure for medium rise rc structures. Proc.13th WCEE, Vancouver, B.C.,
Canada, August 1-6, 2004. Paper No. 1542.
TERDC-98. 1998. Specification for structures to be built in disaster areas: Earthquake disaster
prevention. Ministry of Settlement and Public-Works, Ankara, Turkey. 1998
30
Reinforced Concrete Building Damages in the 2004 Niigata
Ken Chuetsu Earthquakes, Japan
M. Inukai1, M. Iiba1
1. National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management(NILIM), Tsukuba, Japan
ABSTRACT: This paper describes the reinforced concrete building damages in the
2004 Niigata Ken Chuetsu Earthquakes, Japan. The earthquakes occurred in the middle
area of Niigata Prefecture, Japan, where there are some cities, towns and many rural
areas. After the earthquakes took place, NILIM and Building Research Institute sent
teams to investigate building damages. This paper is one part of the report all teams
made.
1 INTRODUCTION
The 2004 Niigata Ken Chuetsu Earthquakes occurred on 23 October, 2004 at the
middle area of Niigata Prefecture. The magnitude of the mainshock is 6.8, and the
maximum seismic intensity(Si.max.) is 7 on Japan Meteorological Agency(JMA) scale
which was observed near the epicenter of the mainshock at Kawaguchi town, located in
the Kita-Uonuma District, about 250 km northwest of Tokyo. After the mainshock, a
series of aftershocks took place. Damage was particularly severe in Kawaguchi, which
was very near the epicenter. Immediately after the earthquake, the NILIM, Ministry of
Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and the Building Research Institute sent several
teams to the sites to investigate the damages caused by the earthquakes. A investigation
team on the damaged buildings was sent since 10 November. The following is a sum-
mary of the investigation report that the authors was involved with seismic perform-
ance of retrofitted building and others.
2 OUTLINE OF THE EARTHQUAKES AND STRONG-MOTION RECORDS
The 2004 Niigata Ken Chuetsu Earthquakes took place on October 23 at 17:56 Ja-
pan time with a magnitude of 6.8 (Si.max. of 7). Following the mainshock, several
magnitude 6-class aftershocks occurred. These are an aftershock of magnitude 6.3
(Si.max. of 5 upper) occurring at 18:03, an aftershock of magnitude 6.0 (Si.max. of 6
upper) occurring at 18:11, the strongest aftershock of magnitude 6.5 (Si.max. of 6 up-
per) occurring at 18:34, and an aftershock of magnitude 6.1 (Si.max. of 6 lower) occur-
ring at 10:40 on October 27 (see Figs. 1, 2 and Table 1).
The middle area of Niigata Prefecture damaged by these earthquakes is configured
of a mountainous region with elevations between 1,500 and 2,000 meters forming the
border with Fukushima and Gunma Prefectures, low-lying hills of elevations between
31
300 and 400 meters. Between the mountainous region and hills, basin-like lowlands
such as the Muikamachi Basin, Tokamachi Basin, and southern part of the Niigata
Plain is located.
Strong-motion data were observed by JMA1) and local authorities. Strong-motion
data of K-net2) is also observed by National Research Institute for Earth Science and
Disaster Prevention. Fig. 2 shows the epicenter of the mainshock as the mark of “ ”,
the epicenters of the aftershocks as the marks of “ , ”, and the observation points by
accelerometers of the JMA and the local authorities strong-motion data network as the
mark of “ , ”. The numbers inside of the marks of “ , , ” are the same as the
earthquake numbers in Table 1. The colors of the mark of “ , ” are different, accord-
ing to the seismic intensity (Si) of each observation points.
A list of some strong-motion records is shown in Table 2. This list shows two earth-
quakes, including the mainshock occurring at 17:56 and an aftershock occurring at
18:34 on the same day.
Acceleration records for JMA-Kawaguchi, JMA-Ojiya, and K-net-Ojiya are shown
in Figs. 3–6. JMA-Kawaguchi is established in an urban district and was nearest the
mainshock. At JMA-Kawaguchi, the mainshock recorded Si.max. of 7, and the after-
shock at 18:34 on Oct. 23 recorded 2,035.6 gal in the east-west direction.
Table1 List of shocks which Si.max. is 5 or more

From 17h56m on 23 Oct. 2004 to 19h on 28 Dec. 2004, Tentative data,
No. Date and time Latitude Longitude Mg Depth Si.max.
day/month hour minute (km)
1 23/Oct 17h56m 37°17.3' 138°52.2' 6.8 13 7
2 23/Oct 17h59m 37°18.5' 138°51.5' 5.3 16 5 upper
3 23/Oct 18h03m 37°21.0' 138°59.1' 6.3 9 5 upper
4 23/Oct 18h07m 37°20.7' 138°52.0' 5.7 15 5 upper
5 23/Oct 18h11m 37°15.0' 138°49.9' 6.0 12 6 upper
6 23/Oct 18h34m 37°18.2' 138°55.9' 6.5 14 6 upper
7 23/Oct 18h36m 37°15.1' 138°56.6' 5.1 7 5 lower
8 23/Oct 18h57m 37°12.2' 138°52.0' 5.3 8 5 upper
9 23/Oct 19h36m 37°12.8' 138°49.6' 5.3 11 5 lower
10 23/Oct 19h45m 37°17.5' 138°52.7' 5.7 12 6 lower
11 23/Oct 19h48m 37°17.6' 138°50.3' 4.4 14 5 lower
12 24/Oct 14h21m 37°14.5' 138°49.7' 5.0 11 5 upper
13 25/Oct 00h28m 37°11.9' 138°52.4' 5.3 10 5 lower
14 25/Oct 06h04m 37°19.6' 138°57.0' 5.8 15 5 upper
15 27/Oct 10h40m 37°17.3' 139°02.1' 6.1 12 6 lower
16 4/Nov 08h57m 37°25.6' 138°55.1' 5.2 18 5 upper
17 8/Nov 11h15m 37°23.5' 139°02.1' 5.9 Near surface 5 upper
18 10/Nov 03h43m 37°22.0' 139°00.2' 5.3 5 5 lower
19 28/Dec 18h30m 37°19.2' 138°59.1' 5.0 8 5 lower
Si.m ax.:M axim um Seism ic Intensity
32
Sea of Japan
The middle area of
Niigata prefecture Pacific Ocean
Fig.1 The middle area of Niigata Prefecture

in Japan
Fig.2 The epicenters of shocks which maximum seismic intensity

(Si.max.) is 5 or more, and seismic intensity (Si) distribution
in Mainshock.
33
Table 2 Measured Results of Mainshock and an Aftershock
Accelerometer Seismic Maximum Acceleration

Date
Address
Horizontal
Intensity (cm/s2)
distance(km)
Tme Type Name (Si) NS EW UD
23 Oct. JMA JMA65042 Kawaguchi 2.5 6.5 1141.9 1675.8 869.6
17:56 JMA JMA532 Ojiya 7.0 6.3 779.2 897.6 730.8
K NIG019 Ojiya 7.0 6.7 1144.3 1313.5 820.0
23 Oct. JMA JMA65042 Kawaguchi 7.3 6.2 1639.9 2035.6 548.5
18:34 JMA JMA532 Ojiya 12.2 5.7 746.5 384.5 570.6
Table 3
Properties of Compared Acceleration Data
Maximum Acceleration
Horizontal (cm/s2)
Date Earthquake Data Name Address Si
distance(km)
NS EW UD
17 Jan.
1995 Kobe JMA-Kobe Kobe 16.5 6 818.0 617.3 322.2
1995
18 May. Imperial
Elcentro(B1F) 341.7
1940 Valley, USA
Japan
BCJ Aritificial 355.7
code-Level2
In a general study on the effects of earthquake waves on buildings, the response ac-
celeration spectrum and response velocity spectrum were calculated when earthquake
waves were inputted into a single degree of freedom elastic model with damping. The
earthquake waves were based on those measured at the JMA-Kawaguchi EW, JMA-
Ojiya EW, and K-net-Ojiya EW during the mainshock, as well as the JMA-Kawaguchi
EW during the aftershock occurring at 18:34, which are shown in Figs. 7 and 8. The
damping ratio is 5%. Figs. 7 and 8 also show responses to the JMA-Kobe NS earth-
quake wave during the 1995 Kobe Earthquake, the El Centro NS earthquake wave, and
Input Design Record Level 2 issued by the Building Center of Japan (Japan code-Level
2) that are frequently used for dynamic analysis(Table 3). The region of these figures at
0.1–1.0 seconds, which is thought to be the period of many buildings, has also been
enlarged. Fig. 7 and 8 show that the acceleration response recorded by JMA-
Kawaguchi during the mainshock exceeds 1,000 gal during the period of 0.1–1.8 sec-
onds, while a large velocity response exceeding 200 kine is recorded when the period
exceeded 1.0 seconds.
In addition, responses recorded by JMA-Ojiya during the mainshock and JMA-
Kawaguchi during the aftershock (18:34 on 23 Oct.) show a high acceleration response
in a relatively short period of 0.3 seconds or less, while the acceleration response more
than 0.3 seconds is approximately the same as that recorded at JMA-Kobe NS. The ve-
locity response is also a level similar to that at JMA-Kobe NS, within the range 0.1–5
seconds. Responses recorded by K-net-Ojiya EW during the mainshock differ from
those recorded by JMA-Ojiya.
34
2000 2000
NS(Peak.:-1141.9cm /s/s) NS(Peak.:779.2cm /s/s)
1500 1500
1000 1000
Acc.(cm /s/s)
Acc.(cm /s/s)
500 500
0 0
-500 0 10 20 30 40 -500 0 10 20 30 40
-1000 -1000
-1500 -1500
Time(s) Time(s)
2000 2000
EW (Peak.:1675.8cm /s/s) EW (Peak.:-897.6cm /s/s)
1500 1500
1000 1000
Acc.(cm /s/s)
Acc.(cm /s/s)
500 500
0 0
-500 0 10 20 30 40 -500 0 10 20 30 40
-1000 -1000
-1500 -1500
Time(s) Time(s)
2000 2000
UD(Peak.:869.6cm /s/s) UD(Peak.:730.8cm /s/s)
1500 1500
1000 1000
Acc.(cm /s/s)
Acc.(cm /s/s)
500 500
0 0
-500 0 10 20 30 40
-500 0 10 20 30 40
-1000 -1000
-1500 -1500
Time(s) Time(s)
Fig. 3 Acceleration Records of Mainshock Fig. 4 Acceleration Records of Mainshock

at Kawaguchi(JMA65042) (17:56 23/Oct./2004) at Ojiya(JMA532) (17:56 23/Oct./2004)
2000 2000
NS(Peak.:1144.3cm /s/s) NS(Peak.:1639.9cm /s/s)
1500 1500
1000 1000
Acc.(cm /s/s)
Acc.(cm /s/s)
500 500
0 0
-500 0 10 20 30 40 -500 0 10 20 30 40
-1000 -1000
-1500 -1500
Time(s) Time(s)
2000 2000
EW (Peak.:1313.5cm /s/s) EW (Peak.:2035.6cm /s/s)
1500 1500
1000 1000
Acc.(cm /s/s)
Acc.(cm /s/s)
500 500
0 0
-500 0 10 20 30 40 -500 0 10 20 30 40
-1000 -1000
-1500 -1500
Time(s) Time(s)
2000 2000
UD(Peak.:820.0cm /s/s) UD(Peak.:548.5cm /s/s)
1500 1500
1000 1000
Acc.(cm /s/s)
Acc.(cm /s/s)
500 500
0 0
-500 0 10 20 30 40 -500 0 10 20 30 40
-1000 -1000
-1500 -1500
Time(s) Time(s)
Fig. 5 Acceleration Records of Mainshock Fig. 6 Acceleration Records of an Aftershock

at Ojiya(K-net, NIG019)(17:56 23/Oct./2004) at Kawaguchi(JMA65042) (18:24 23/Oct./2004)
35
6,000 JMA Kawaguchi EW

500
Damping ratio=5% Damping ratio=5%
(1023 17:56)
Response Acceleration(cm/sec)
2
Response Velocity(cm/sec)
JMA Ojiya EW
5,000 (1023 17:56) 400
K-net Ojiya EW
(1023 17:56)
(1023 18:34) 300
JMA Kobe NS 1995
3,000
Elcentro NS 1940
200
2,000 BCJ-Level2
(Bedrock)
1,000 100
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Period(sec) Period(sec)
Response Acceleration Spectrum Response Acceleration Spectrum
(1)Period 0.1 5second (1)Period 0.1 5second
6,000 JMA Kawaguchi EW 500
Damping ratio=5% (1023 17:56) Damping
Response Acceleration(cm/sec)
2
Response Velocity (cm/sec)

JMA Ojiya EW ratio=5%
5,000 (1023 17:56)
K-net Ojiya EW
400
(1023 17:56)
(1023 18:34) 300
JMA Kobe NS 1995
3,000
Elcentro NS 1940
200
2,000 BCJ-Level2
(Bedrock)
1,000 100
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Period(sec) Period(sec)
Response Acceleration Spectrum Response Acceleration Spectrum
(2)Period 0.1 1second (2)Period 0.1 1second
Fig.7 Response Acceleration Spectrum Fig.8 Response Velocity Spectrum
Table 4 Damages in Niigata Prefecture (Compiled by Niigata Local Gov. Updated on 17 May 2005)
Other than
People Houses Others
houses
Items (Public
Heavy
Dead Injured Collapse Heavy Middle Slight buildings and Roads Rivers Landslides
injured
others)
Unit persons buildings buildings places
Numbers 46 632 4,161 2,821 2,011 11,040 103,615 39,203 6,064 229 442
Table 5 Emergency Inspection on Houses and Buildings

(Compiled by Japan Council for Quick Inspection of Earthquake Damaged Buildings.)
(Finalized on Nov.2004)
Results
Address Unsafe Limited Entry Inspected Total
(red) (yellow) (green)
20 cities, towns,
and villages. 5,243 11,122 19,778 36,143
ratio 14.50% 30.80% 54.70% 100%
(Unit: building)
If we assume that these responses were generated in the buildings themselves, then
it should be considered that much severe structural damage could be occurred. How-
36
ever, since some of the buildings around the observation points suffered little damage,
it is important that we study the input seismic motion into these buildings from the
view point of structural performance.
3 DAMAGE OVERVIEW
3.1 Survey by the Emergency Taskforce Headquarter of Niigata Prefecture

Table 4 shows data compiled in a survey by the Emergency Taskforce Headquarter
of Niigata Prefecture gathered from Fire Prevention Stations in each region. Damage in
Niigata Prefecture caused by the earthquakes extended to 15 cities, 31 towns, and 15
villages, resulting in 46 dead, 632 people with heavy injuries, and 4,161 people with
minor injuries. As for the damaged wooden buildings used as residences, 2,821 houses
were collapsed. 39,203 buildings other than houses were also damaged.
3.2 Survey by Japan Council for Quick Inspection of Earthquake Damaged Buildings
The Japan Council for Quick Inspection of Earthquake Damaged Buildings also
executeed another structural damage survey separate from the Emergency Taskforce
Headquarter of Niigata Prefecture (see Table 5). This survey was performed immedi-
ately after the mainshock in order to notify building inhabitants of the risk of a build-
ing collapsing or other dangers. The area of assessment centered on the earthquake epi-
center and spread over 20 cities, towns, and villages, including Kawaguchi. Among the
buildings inspected, 5,243 were determined to be “Unsafe” and received red notices,
while “Limited Entry” notices were posted on 11,122 buildings, and “Inspected” no-
tices on 19,778 buildings.
Among the buildings determined to be unsafe or restricted to limited entry during
this inspection, not all cases signified that the building itself was unsafe. In some in-
stances, the inspection results were based on the risk of landslides or falling objects
from the outside.
4 BUILDING DAMAGE
4.1 Retrofitted Reinforced Concrete Building

Retrofitted building located in Tokamachi consists of the some buildings(Fig.9).
a. Administrative division building: 3-storeys RC structure completed in 1965, hav-
ing a length of 81.0 m, a width of 9.90 m (with two irregular planning for stair-
wells, etc.), and a total floor space of 3,196 m2, with a frame structure in the lon-
gitudinal direction and a frame structure with shear wall in the latitudinal direction.
In August 2004, retrofitting works were performed on the northern half of this
building using steel braces, reinforced concrete walls installed, and wall column
expanded.
(1) Summary of Damages
37
The administrative division build-

ing: very little damage is visible in the Slope
northern half of the building that have
already retrofitted (see Photos 4.1.1
1st Gymnasium
and 4.1.2). This eastern frame is retro- Technology class
fitted by steel braces, an inside frame
and stairwell is retrofitted by RC walls Judo
Gymnasium Special class
installed, and western frame is retrofit-
ted by wall columns expanded). How- 2nd Gymnasium
ever, in the southern half of this build- Agriculture
ing that was not retrofitted, and many class Retrofitted area
shear cracks took place in the wall col-
N
umns in the western frame (shortened Administrative division
columns used for spandrel walls, etc.),
with great shear failure in two or three
members. Shear cracks were also gen- Fig. 9 Site of Retrofitted RC building
erated around the stairwell and in the
shear wall (some cracks exceeding 2 mm in width) and in the spandrel walls(Fig. 4.1.3
and 4.1.4). Columns in the eastern frame suffered almost no damage, perhaps due to
the spandrel walls that extend farther outward than the column members. Cracks were
also not seen in the inside frame. Glass panes in the windows did not break in any of
the buildings (earthquake-resistant sashes were used in the retrofitted area). In a corri-
dor connecting the administrative division building to the special class building
showed some crash damages in the expansion joint on the special class building side,
and shear cracks occurred in short-span beams on the first floor. Only minor damage
could be seen in the walls and others around the stairwells in the special class building
and technology class building, while there are no damage in the department of agricul-
ture building.
Photo 4.1.1 Retrofitting method Photo 4.1.2 Retrofitting method

(steel brace reinforcement) (RC wall installed)
38
Photo 4.1.3 Shear failure in wall columns Photo 4.1.4 Shear cracks in shear wall
(in western frame on the second floor (on the first floorof the administrative
of the administrative division building) division building)
Photo 4.1.5 Damage to expansion joint Photo 4.1.6 Shear cracks in short-
(between administrative division building span
and special class building) beam (expansion joint on first floor
4.2 Other Buildings
The surveys were also executeed on other buildings in the damaged area. The fol-
lowing is a description of 4 results at this survey.
4.2.1 Building near the Epicenter

In the town of Kawaguchi near the epicenter of the mainshock, we studied struc-
tures consisting of a 3-storey main building having an RC frame structure that was
built in 1979, and a 3-story annex thought to have been built some years later. A visual
inspection of the exterior and a portion of the interior revealed only minor damage,
with almost no damage to the structural members.
Other damage was noted in the steel cantilever overhang at the entrance and an ex-
pansion joint between the main building and the annex (Photo 4.2.1.1). Measurements
of the annex were taken since the structure appeared to be not vertical exactly. The
measurements showed leaning of about 1/100 to the west and about 1/200 to the north.
In the backside of this building, a local authority accelerometer is set up and 2,035 gal
39
was recorded in an aftershock (Photo 4.2.1.2). No damages of window glass and others
were seen in either the main building or annex.
The location of the accelerometer which

recorded 2,035gal in an aftershock
Photo 4.2.1.2 The accelerometer which
Photo 4.2.1.1 Damage of expansion joint recorded 2,035gal in an aftershock
4.2.2 Middle-Rise Building

A middle-rise building is located in Tokamachi and is an RC construction ranging
from one to six floors, depending on the section. The oldest section is a hospital ward
of 6 storeys constructed in 1971. There is also a 3 storeys outpatient clinic constructed
in 1987 and a new 3 sotreys hospital ward constructed in 1989 or sometime thereafter.
This survey focused on the hospital ward of 6 storeys constructed in 1971 and studied
the damage rating of columns on the second floor, where the severest damage was seen
in this building. The following is a summary of the damage.
The main bars buckled in a column located on the second floor of the hospital ward
(6 storeys section constructed in 1971; Photo 4.2.2.1) in the southwest corner. The
main bars are D22, while the hoops are round steel bars of φ8mm-@130. The
hoops are anchored by 90º hooks and the anchor length is thought to be 6d, where
d is the diameter of the hoops.
A fracture was observed in one location of a main bar in a pressure welding joint,
though the raised bump on the pressure welding joint was very small (Photo
4.2.2.2).
Out-of-plane in outer wall of the hospital ward on the second floor: 3.5 mm north
and 2 mm west over a height of 1,000 mm.
Since the finishing was coming off the bottom of the southwest column on the sec-
ond floor, it is likely that the concrete underneath collapsed would be compressive
collapsed.
Unevenness on the floor of a hospital ward room in the southwest corner on the
second floor was measured. The floor was sloping downward 2 mm to the west and
40
4 mm to the south over a distance of 1,000 m around a column that had buckled,
downward 6 mm to the south near the center of the floor, and downward 3 mm to
the north in the center corridor.
In addition, cracks were also detected in the columns and walls on the second
floor, and shear cracks were found in columns on the east side.
The column on the first floor below that in the southwest corner of the second floor
has a cross section roughly twice the size of that on the second floor and exhibited very
little damage, except for some cracking. It is thought that the cross section of the col-
umns on the first floor were made larger because the building holders planned to in-
crease the number of floors on the single-floor ward adjacent to the 6-floor ward.
There was no damage in window glasses.
Photo 4.2.2.1 Column in the south Photo 4.2.2.2 Detail of the same column
west corner on the second floor in the 6 (the fracture in the pressure welding joint
storeys hospital ward is seen in the center of photo)
4.2.3 Buildings next to Base Isolated Building

A building that have been constructed with seismic isolation in Ojiya exhibited suf-
ficient isolation effects based on paths traced by the isolating members and records of
acceleration during seismic motion. We studied the relationship between behavior and
mechanical properties of the base isolated members during an earthquake in details as
another report is showing.
Photo 4.2.3.1 and 4.2.3.2 show the damages of buildings next to this base isolated
building. These buildings are composed of 6 buildings which are 3 storeys built in
1968, 7 storeys in 1969, 7 storeys in 1980, 3 storeys in 1982, 3 storeys in 1988 and 4
storeys in 1990. The building constructed in 1968 is severest damaged (Photo 4.2.3.1).
5 CONCLUSION
In the 2004 Niigata Ken Chuetsu Earthquakes, there are some retrofitted buildings in
the damaged area. While one of these buildings was damaged, most of the damage was
found in the area of the same building that was not retrofitted yet. That cleared the evi-
dence and importance of retrofitting.
41
Photo 4.2.3.1 Shear failure of columns Photo 4.2.3.2 Shear failure of walls
in 3 storeys building constructed in 1968 in 7 storeys constructed in 1969
Damage to the reinforced concrete buildings was found primarily in the mode of
shear failure in columns (particularly short columns) and walls of the buildings, dam-
age by a buckling of main bars in the hinge zone of column bottom in low-rise or mid-
dle-rise buildings, shear failure in short-span beams, damage caused by eccentricity,
and damage to non-structural members, most of which damage was seen in relatively
older buildings designed by old building code. This type of damage has been fre-
quently observed and reported since the Tokachi-Oki Earthquake in 1968 and reminds
us of the importance of seismic retrofitting. We particularly saw a lot of damage rated
V3) (severest in the five-level damage ranking) in shear failure of shortened columns
with attached spandrel walls or hanging walls. Hence, it will be particularly important
to improve the seismic performance of these fragile vertical structural members.
It is needed to execute analytical studies of relationship between strong-motion re-
cords and the damages of the buildings summarized in this study. And it is also impor-
tant to execute a comparison of damage classifications and other data, and relationship
between seismic motion and building damage.
6 REFERENCES
1) Homepage of Japan Meteorological Agency, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and

Transport, “References of the 2004 Niigata Ken Chuetsu Earthquakes”(Japanese),
http://www.seisvol.kishou.go.jp/eq/seismo.html
2) Homepage of National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Preven-
tion, “K-NET”(English), http://www.kyoshin.bosai.go.jp/
3) Guideline Editing Team of Building Research Institute, “Guideline for Damage
Survey Methods of Earthquake Disaster Related with Buildings and
Houses”(English), Building Research Institute, Japan, 2002.
42
Seismic Performance of a Base Isolated Building in the
2004 Niigata Ken Chuetsu Earthquakes
M. Tamari1, M. Inukai2
1. Mitsubishi Jisho Sekkei, Tokyo, Japan
2. National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management, Tsukuba, Japan
ABSTRACT: A strong earthquake occurred in the middle part of Japan. There were
2,827 buildings destroyed and 1,969 heavily damaged in Niigata Prefecture (updated
on 19 March 2005). This report presents the exclusive performance of base isolation
system demonstrated by means of seismic records and a field survey of a base isolated
building, which exists very close to the epicenter of the earthquake.
1 INTRODUCTION
On 23 October 2004, at 17:56 (local time in Japan), the 2004 Niigata Ken Chuetsu
Earthquakes occurred in the Japanese region of Chuetsu, about 80km south of Niigata
city. Its magnitude was 6.8 in JMA scale and the focal depth was 13km. A nursing
home building, which has a base isolated structure, located in Ojiya city about 7km
distance from the epicenter (see Figure 2). In this building, a pair of seismic sensors is
installed at the foundation and above the base isolators. The observed seismic records
indicated that the base isolators reduced the horizontal acceleration by 75%. After the
earthquake, a field survey of the building is carried out, and it is demonstrated that the
building and its contents suffered almost no damage, despite of the severe ground mo-
tion.
high
|
INTEN
-SITY
|
low
EPICENTER
OJIYA
Figure 1. The building after the earthquake
Figure 2. Map of observed intensities
43
2 BUILDING DESIGN OUTLINE
The nursing home building was planed in 1995, just after the Hanshin-Awaji Earth-
quake, which seriously damaged many buildings in Kobe city. Considering such dam-
ages, it was decided that the building should maintain as a medical service institution
in case of natural calamity and that base isolation should be the structural design prin-
ciple, among various engineering strategies for reducing earthquake damage to build-
ings. The building outline is shown in the below.
Table 1. Building outline
Number of story 5 stories above ground

Building height 19.29m
Building area 1,156.21m2
Total floor area 4,447.92m2
Structural system Reinforced concrete frame and shear wall
Foundation Raft foundation
Base isolator Rubber bearing (18 sets)
Slide bearing (21 sets)
Completion date 30 May 1997
3 STRUCTURAL DESIGN
3.1 Structural design

This building is a 5 story, reinforced concrete structure. Figure 3 shows the plan of
base isolators and Figure 4 shows a structural section. Structural frame of the building
is on regular grids, and is supported by 39 isolators sitting on raft foundation. There is
hard gravel layer directly under the foundation.
For seismic design of the structure, base shear coefficient 0.12 was decided from the
dynamic analysis.
Rubber bearing PHRFL
4,700 2,700
PHFL
5FL
2,300 3,600 3,500 3,500 4,100
22,200
4FL
3FL
2FL
¤ ÝŒvGL 1FL
100
4,400
N B1FL
2,100
Base isolator
5,700 5,700 5,700 5,700 5,700 6,000
34,500
Slide bearing
Figure 3. Base isolator plan Figure 4. Structural section
44
3.2 Base isolation device

Two types of base isolation device are used in the building (see Figure 5). One is a
rubber bearing deforming elastically under seismic loads. The other is a slide bearing
used as a friction damper, whose coefficient of friction is 0.12.
This isolation system is modeled as a bi-linear hysteretic spring. The elastic natural pe-
riod of this system is 1.2 sec, and the post-yield period is 4.5 sec. These periods are
enough to avoid the resonance between ground motion and the building motion. The
predominant period of ground motion at this site is estimated to be 0.25 sec
(a) Rubber bearing (b) Slide bearing

Figure 5. Base isolation devices
4 STRONG MOTION RECORDS
A pair of seismic sensors is installed on the foundation and above the isolator. Figure 6
shows the pseudo velocity response spectra for 5% critical damping of the records ob-
served on the foundation. The motion is the greatest ever recorded in base isolated
building in Japan. The doted line in Figure 6 shows the seismic design spectrum speci-
fied as very rare earthquake in the Japanese building codes. The value of this earth-
quake is higher than the design spectrum in the range of 3 sec and lower.
Acceleration records are shown in Figure 7. During the earthquake, horizontal accel-
erations above the isolator were less than those recorded on the foundation. It should
be noted that the isolators reduced the accelerations by 75%. The vertical acceleration
above the isolators, which motion is not isolated, is relatively amplified.
h=0.05
PSV (cm/s)
2
10
1
10 –1 0 1 Sensor on the foundation
10 10 10
period (s)
N–S dir. Design spectrum

E–W dir. (very rare earthquake)
Figure 6. Pseudo velocity response spectra
45
N–S acceleration abov e the isolator (198cm/s2)

ac c. (cm/s2)
1000 on the foundation (740cm/s2)

500
0
–500
–1000
0 10 20 30 40 50
time (s)
E–W acceleration abov e the isolator (205cm/s2)

ac c.(cm/s2)
1000 on the foundation (808cm/s2) Sensor above the isolator

500
0
–500
Sensor on the foundation
–100 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
time (s)
Vertical acceleration abov e the isolator (749cm/s2)

ac c. (cm/s2)
1000 on the foundation (487cm/s2)

500
0
–500
–1000
0 10 20 30 40 50
time (s)
Figure 7. Recorded seismic acceleration
5 NUMERICAL SIMULATION
To estimate maximum acceleration and deformation of the superstructure, a numerical

simulation using a SDOF model was carried out.
5.1 SDOF model and input motions
Figure 8 shows the mathematical model of the building. The superstructure was mod-
eled as a 5-story single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system excited horizontally, which
has a tri-linear hysteretic behavior at each floor. Isolators were modeled as a linear be-
havior for rubber bearings and an elasto-plastic behavior for slide bearings.
Seismic motions using for this study were transformed into regular directions of the
building (X-direction and Y-direction).
5.2 5.2 Evaluation of Numerical Study
Figure 9 shows response deformation of the base isolators. The blue wave is the re-
sponse by the SDOF study. And the red one is the response based on the record. It was
confirmed that the SDOF wave is nearly similar to the record in the range of main mo-
tion. The red wave is calculated with Fourier integral method, so residual deformation
drift did not come out.
46
X direction
disp. (cm)
20
10
0
–10
–20
0 10 20 30 40
time (s)
Y direction
disp. (cm)
20
10
0
–10
–20
0 10 20 30 40
G time (s)
Red : response based on the record

Blue: response by SDOF study
Figure 9. Deformation of the base isolators
Slide bearing Rubber bearing
Figure 8. 5-story SDOF model
X direction Y direction
6 6
5 5
4 4
Simulated
Simulated
3 3
2 2
1
Recorded 1
Recorded
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Acceleration (gal) Acceleration (gal)
Figure 10. Maximum acceleration of each story
6
6
5 5
4 4
R=1/4865 R=1/1542
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0.0E+00 2.0E-04 4.0E-04 6.0E-04 8.0E-04 0.0E+00 2.0E-04 4.0E-04 6.0E-04 8.0E-04
Deformation (rad.) Deformation (rad.)
Figure 11. Maximum deformation of each story
47
Figure 10 and 11 show the diagram of the maximum response acceleration and the
maximum deformation of each story. The maximum value of the recorded acceleration
above the isolators, represented by the red square, is nearly equal to the calculated.
The maximum response acceleration is 146.0 gal (SDOF), 194.3 gal (recorded) for X-
direction, and 160.4 gal (SDOF), 223.0 gal (recorded) for Y-direction. The maximum
response displacements are 11.3 cm (SDOF), 11.6 cm (FFT) for X-direction, and 22.6
cm (SDOF), 19.0 cm (FFT) for Y-direction.
These results pointed out three conclusions below.
• SDOF model appropriately describes the recorded response.
• Maximum acceleration of each story is estimated in the range of 100 to 200
cm/s2 approximately.
• Maximum deformation of each story is evaluated so small to damage the struc-
tural frame.
6 POST-EARTHQUAKE CONDITIONS
The last part of this report is photographic document from a field survey of the build-
ing.
Figure 12.1 shows the building façade. No damage was identified in the exterior of this
building. Figure 12.2 to 12.4 show the objects that did not fall dawn to the floor by the
shaking. The nursing home manager said “Objects in this building, such dishes and ob-
jects on a shelf, did not fall down to the floor”.
Figure 12.1 The building façade Figure 12.2 Cupboard in the 1st floor
Figure 12.3 Terrace of the 2nd floor Figure 12.4 Statue on shelf in the 3rd floor
48
All isolators were inspected after the earthquake. The deformation of 3 cm was identi-
fied in the rubber bearings. But it was less than the allowable value of 5 cm. The drift
at slide bearing was 15 cm observed by the imprints of sliding. (Figure 13.1 to 13.2)
Figure 13.1 Rubber bearing
Figure 13.2 Slide bearing
Approximately 4,800 buildings/houses were destroyed or heavily damaged in Niigata

prefecture. In the neighboring area of the base isolated building, many houses/building
suffered heavy damage as shown in figure 14.1 and 14.2.
Figure 14.1 Fatal damage in the neighboring house/building
49
Figure 14.2 Falling down objects in the neighboring building
7 CONCLUSIONS
Finally, three conclusions should be remarked about the seismic performance of the
base isolated building.
• The maximum acceleration of 800 cm/s2 was reduced by 75%. Recorded mo-
tions confirmed the great performance of base isolation system.
• The SDOF model appropriately describes the recorded response. And maxi-
mum deformation of each story is evaluated so small to damage the structural
frame.
• The building and its contents suffered almost no damage, despite of the maxi-
mum response acceleration of 200 cm/s2 at the horizontal direction and 750
cm/s2 at the vertical direction.
50
Simplified Modelling accounting for Shear and Torsion
J. Mazars1, P. Kotronis1, F. Ragueneau2
1. Laboratoire Sols, Solides, Structures & RNVO network Grenoble -France
2. Laboratoire de Mécanique et Technologie Cachan - France
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this work is to investigate solutions for an enhanced mul-
tifiber beam element accounting for shear and torsion. Higher order interpolations
functions are used to avoid any shear locking phenomena and the cross section warping
kinematics is extended to non-linear behavior using advanced constitutive laws. The
efficiency of the proposed modeling strategies is tested with experimental results of
concrete structural elements subjected to severe loading.
1 INTRODUCTION
In order to design and study the behavior of reinforced concrete (R/C) buildings in
high seismicity areas, one usually follows the capacity design procedure [1], [2] and
uses tools such as modal analysis or push-over analysis [3]). An alternative choice is to
perform non-linear time history calculations assuming an accurate description of mate-
rials and applying transient loadings on the structure. Modeling the evolution of eigen
modes concomitant to stiffness degradation governed by a local yield criterion is cur-
rently the most refined method of analysis for predicting the ultimate behavior of con-
crete structures. However, due to excessive computational costs this approach is not
commonly used in Earthquake Engineering. Non-linear dynamic analysis of complex
civil engineering structures based on a detailed finite element model requires large-
scale computations and involves delicate solution techniques. The necessity to perform
parametric studies due to the stochastic characteristic of the input accelerations im-
poses simplified numerical modeling that reduces the computational cost. In this work,
the latter is achieved by adopting a multifiber beam model for representing the global
behavior of the structural components of a complex civil engineering structure. The
constitutive laws remain however sufficiently general to take into account all the dif-
ferent inelastic phenomena (cracking by damage, permanent deformation by plasticity
and crack-closing by unilateral contact condition).
The classical approach when using multifiber beam elements is to neglect shear effects
and to consider that sections remain plane and perpendicular to the neutral axis of the
beam (Euler - Bernoulli hypothesis). The purpose of this article is to study solutions for
a multifiber beam element capable of reproducing shear (sections remain plane but not
necessarily perpendicular to the neutral axis - Timoshenko theory) or shear due to tor-
sion. For the first case the possibility of using higher order interpolation functions to
avoid any shear locking phenomena is investigated. For the second case, in order to ac-
count for non-linear torsion the cross section warping kinematics is studied in the
51
framework of elasticity and extended to non-linear behavior using advanced constitu-

tive laws. The effects of warping on the damage kinematics and the crack pattern of the
cross section are studied and their influences on the global behavior of structural mem-
bers are analyzed.
The efficiency of the proposed modeling strategies is validated with experimental re-
sults on three concrete elements submitted to severe loading. A cantilever-type R/C
column specimen, a U-shaped R/C wall and a plain concrete beam subject to pure tor-
sion. Comparisons between experiments and computations give an insight into the ap-
proach.
2 MODELS FOR MATERIALS
Both steel and concrete are described within the thermodynamic framework for irre-
versible processes [4]. In order to reproduce correctly the behavior of reinforcement
bars, we choose a classical plasticity model accounting for the non-linear kinematic
hardening of Armstrong and Frederick [5].
Constitutive laws for concrete are based on the principles of damage mechanics follow-
ing the usual approach [4]: after choosing the state variables and the expression of free
energy, derivations give the state laws that lead to the constitutive equations as pre-
sented below.
2.1 La Borderie damage model for concrete [6]
A model suitable for cyclic loading has to take into account some observed phenomena
such as decrease in material stiffness due to cracking, stiffness recovery which occurs
at crack closure and inelastic strains concomitant to damage. Due to the crack closure
effect, damage is deactivated and inelastic strains in the direction of extension disap-
pear when passing from the tension to compression. To simulate this behavior two dif-
ferent scalar variables are used, D1 for damage in tension and D2 for damage in com-
pression [6]. Inelastic strains are taken into account thanks to a partition of the strain
tensor :
ε = εe +εin (1)
σ σ ν
εe = + + − + (σ − Tr (σ )I ) (2)
E (1 − D1 ) E (1 − D2 ) E
β1D1 ∂f (σ ) β 2 D2
εin = + I (3)
E (1 − D1 ) ∂σ E (1 − D2 )
with εe the elastic strains and εin the inelastic strains. <.>+ denotes the positive part of
a tensor. E is the initial Young's modulus and ν the Poisson ratio. β1 and β 2 are ma-
terial constants.
Damage criteria are expressed as f i = Yi − Z i ( i =1 for tension or 2 for compression,
Yi is the associated force to the damage variable Di and Z i a threshold dependent on
52
the hardening variables). The evolution laws for the damage variables Di are written
as:
1
Di = 1 − (4)
1 + [Ai (Yi − Y0 i )] i
B
Y0i = initial elastic threshold ( Y0i =Zi(Di =0)) , A,i Bi material constants.
∂f(σ) / ∂σ controls the crack-closure effects depending on the actual stress state as fol-
lows:
⎧ ∂f (σ )
⎪Tr (σ ) ∈ [0,+∞) →
∂σ
=I
⎪
⎪ ∂f (σ ) ⎛⎜ Tr (σ ) ⎞⎟
⎨Tr (σ ) ∈ [−σ f ,0) → = 1− I (5)
⎪ ∂σ ⎜
⎝ σ f ⎟⎠
⎪ ∂f (σ )
⎪Tr (σ ) ∈ (−∞,−σ f ) → = 0.I
⎩ ∂σ
σ f being the crack closure stress. Figure 1 gives a schematic stress-strain response of
that model for a uniaxial traction-compression loading path.
anelastic strains
σ
crack reopening cracking
decrease in stiffness
under compression
ε Figure 1 : Uniaxial response of
decrease in stiffness
the damage model for concrete
under tension under cyclic loading
crack closure
damage initiation
under compression
3 3D MULTIFIBER TIMOSHENKO BEAM AND APPLICATION
3.1 Multifiber beam accounting for shear
In order to simulate - in a simplified manner - the 3D behavior of concrete elements

under cyclic or dynamic loading, a 3D multifiber Timoshenko beam element has been
developed [7], [8]. The element is displacement-based (see also [9] for an element with
a forced based formulation) and can be implemented to any general-purpose finite ele-
ment code without major modifications. The user defines at each fiber a material and
the appropriate constitutive law. The element takes into account deformations due to
shear and has higher order interpolation functions to avoid any shear locking phenom-
53
ena (cubic and quadratic Lagrangian polynomials are used for the transverse and rota-
tional displacements respectively). The interpolation functions take the following form
[10] :
{U s } = [N ]{U } (6)
{U s }T {
= u s ( x) v s ( x) ws ( x) θ sx ( x) θ sy ( x ) θ sz ( x)} (7)
{U }T {
= u1 v1 w1 θ x1 θ y1 θ z1 u 2 v 2 w2 θ x 2 θ y 2 θ z 2 } (8)
being 1 and 2 the two nodes of the beam, x the axis of the beam, s the subscript defin-
ing “section variables”, u, v, w the displacements and θ x ,θ y ,θ z the rotations according
to the x, y, z axis respectively (Figure 2).
Figure 2 : Multifibre beam

element to model a R/C struc-
tural element
[N ] is the matrix containing the interpolation functions:

⎡ N1 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 ⎤
2
⎢0 N3 0 0 0 N4 0 N5 0 0 0 N6 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
0 N 3 0 − N 4* 0
* *
⎢0 0 0 0 − N 6* 0 ⎥
[N ] = ⎢ 0
N5
(9)
0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 N2 0 0 ⎥
⎢ 1 ⎥
⎢0 *
0 − N 7 0 N8* 0 0 0 − N 9* 0 N10
* 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ 0 N7 0 0 0 N8 0 N9 0 0 0 N10 ⎥⎦
x x 1 ⎧ x 3 x 2 x ⎫
N1 = 1 − ; N2 = ; N3 = ⎨2( ) − 3( ) − φ ( ) + 1 + φ ⎬ (10)
L L 1+ φ ⎩ L L L ⎭
54
L ⎧ x 3 φ x 2 φ x ⎫
N4 = ⎨( ) − (2 + )( ) + (1 + )( )⎬ (11)
1+φ ⎩ L 2 L 2 L ⎭
1 ⎧ x 3 x 2 x ⎫
N5 = − ⎨2( ) − 3( ) − φ ( )⎬ (12)
1+ φ ⎩ L L L ⎭
L ⎧ x 3 φ x 2 φ x ⎫ 6 ⎧ x 2 x ⎫
N6 = ⎨( ) − (1 − )( ) − ( )⎬ ; N 7 = ⎨( ) − ( )⎬ (13)
1+φ ⎩ L 2 L 2 L ⎭ (1 + φ ) L ⎩ L L ⎭
1 ⎧ x 2 x ⎫ 6 ⎧ x 2 x ⎫
N8 = ⎨3( ) − (4 + φ )( ) + (1 + φ )⎬ ; N 9 = − ⎨( ) − ( )⎬ (14)
1+φ ⎩ L L ⎭ (1 + φ ) L ⎩ L L ⎭
1 ⎧ x 2 x ⎫
N10 = ⎨3( ) − (2 − φ )( )⎬ (15)
1+φ ⎩ L L ⎭
with N i* = N i (φ * ) , φ and φ * the stiffness ratios due to flexion and shear according to :
2 2
12 ∫S E y dS 12 ∫ E z dS
φ= ( ) and φ * = 2 ( S ) (16)
L2 k y ∫S GdS L k z ∫S GdS
being L the length and S the section of the beam, k y , k z shear correction factors de-
pendent upon the material definition and cross-section geometry [11], E and G
Young’s and shear moduli of the fiber.
For slender structures φ and φ * equal zero and the resulting stiffness and mass matrices
are reduced to the ones of the Euler-Bernoulli beam theory. The interpolations func-
tions depend on the materials properties and are calculated only once, during the first
step (a loop at the section level helps defining the properties of the material of each fi-
ber. After that, the interpolations functions are kept constant). If {F } and {D} are the sec-
tion ''generalized'' stresses and strains respectively, the section stiffness matrix [K s ] is
calculated as [12] :
{F } = [K s ]{D} with {F }T {
= N T y Tz M x M y M z } (17)
with N and T axial and shear forces respectively and M moments.
{D}T ={[us' (x)] ' (x)] [θ ' (x)] [θ ' (x)]}

[vs' (x)−θ sz(x)] [ws' (x)+θ sy(x)] [θ sx sy sz (18)
55
⎡ K s11 0 0 0 K s15 K s16 ⎤

⎢ K 0 K 0 0 ⎥⎥
⎢ s 22 s 24
⎢ K s 33 K s 34 0 0 ⎥
[K s ] = ⎢ ⎥ (19)
⎢ K s 44 0 0 ⎥
⎢ K s 55 K s 56 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣⎢ sym K s 66 ⎥⎦
∫
S ∫
K s11 = EdS ; K s15 = EzdS ; K s16 = −
S ∫ EydS ; K
S
s 22 ∫
= k y GdS
S
(20)
∫
S ∫
K s 24 = −k y GzdS ; K s 33 = k z GdS ; K s 34 = k z
S ∫ GydS
S
(21)
∫ G (k ∫ ∫
2
K s 44 = zy + k y z 2 )dS ; K s 55 = Ez 2 dS ; K s 56 = − EyzdS (22)
S S S
∫ Ey dS
2
K s 66 = (23)
S
3.2 U-shaped Wall submitted to cyclic loading

This application concerns the experimental results of a R/C U-shaped wall tested at the
reaction wall of the ELSA laboratory at JRC Ispra [13]. The 3.6 m height - 1.0 scaled -
specimen is composed of the U shaped wall, a lower slab and an upper slab and its de-
sign follows Eurocode 8 provisions (figure 3). The upper slab is used as the horizontal
load application point while six vertical post-tensioning bars apply a normal force of 2
MN. These bars are disposed in such a way that the force is applied close to the inertial
center in order to avoid spurious bending on the structure. Torsional rotation is prohib-
ited during the tests inducing important shear stresses in the specimen. The wall is
loaded in both directions according to “the butterfly path” presented in figure 3.
11 multifibre Timoshenko beam elements are used for the numerical simulation of the
U shaped wall. 177 fibers simulate the concrete and 46 fibers the steel. Two Gauss
points are considered at each element. Base slab is not simulated and the wall is con-
sidered fixed at the base. The behavior of the top slab is considered linear elastic and
rotation of the upper part is prohibited in order to reproduce correctly the boundary
conditions of the test. The uniaxial version of the La Borderie damage constitutive law
is used for concrete (shear and torsion are considered linear). In order to take into ac-
count the influence of the stirrups the compression strength of the confined concrete is
increased up to 30 Mpa. Comparison of numerical and experimental results for the
eight steps of loading is represented in figure 4. Again the secant Newton-Raphson
scheme is used and the calculation takes only a couple of hours. One can observe the
ability of the model to simulate the global behavior of the specimen in terms of dis-
placements and forces in both directions up to failure while the specimen is mainly re-
sponding in shear to resist high torsion.
56
(mm)
(mm)
Figure 3. U-shaped wall: Description of the specimen and loading history.
1.2E+06 8.0E+05
Test
8.0E+05 Test
Shear Force X (N)
Model
Shear ForceY (N)
4.0E+05 Model
4.0E+05
0.0E+00 0.0E+00
-4.0E+05
-4.0E+05
-8.0E+05
-1.2E+06 -8.0E+05
-0.09 -0.06 -0.03 0 0.03 0.06 0.09 -0.09 -0.06 -0.03 0 0.03 0.06 0.09
Displacement X (m) Displa ce me nt Y (m)
Figure 4. U-shaped wall: Numerical versus experimental results.
57
4 MULTIFIBER BEAM ACCOUNTIG FOR TORSION
The analysis of concrete structures subject to severe loading including torsion can be
apprehended in different ways depending on the level of refinement and accuracy
needed. Following the recent developments in structural mechanics, complete nonlin-
ear 3D computations are now feasible. Although the question of material modeling is
accurately treated even for complex loading paths, some assumptions and simplifica-
tions should be made when large scale computations are needed.
One possibility is to stay within the classical beam theory and to use a global formula-
tion taking into account the normal, flexural and torsional interactions [14]. This ap-
proach allows handling large scale structures with low computational cost but has the
disadvantage of loosing important information on the local level. Classical 3D finite
element computations may also be used in linear elasticity in order to treat the problem
of general warping of an homogeneous elastic beam [15] or of a composite material
like a R/C bar [16].
In order to simulate correctly torsional behavior using multifiber beams, the influence
in the crack pattern of the section has to be considered. There are various ways, 1/ lin-
ear, generally used, 2/ globally non-linear with a non-linear relation connecting torque
moment and rotation, 3/ locally non linear, by using a 3D local behavior on each fiber.
This approach is difficult because very few concrete constitutive relations are efficient
and robust enough under cyclic or dynamic loading. Moreover, two possibilities ap-
pear: with or without section warping. The relevancy of considering complex kinemat-
ics of the section and 3D local constitutive relationships in the framework of a simpli-
fied approach is discussed in the following.
4.1 Linear elastic torsion and warping

The aim of the study is to obtain the strain field due to pure torsion for each fiber by
solving the warping problem for a section composed of several materials (for example
reinforced concrete). Initially the problem is solved within the linear elastic framework
of the free torsion of Saint Venant.
y
2b
θ1 θ2
x Figure 5 : Beam model in torsion
2a
z
L
Let us consider a R/C section assuming that there is no discontinuity between steel and
concrete. Under the hypothesis of small displacements, the solution of the problem is
assumed as:
u(x,y,z) = α . ϕ(y,z), v(x,y,z) = - α . x . z and w(x,y,z) = α . x . y (24)
where u, v, w are the three components of the displacement vectors, (O, x, y, z) is the
58
Cartesian frame Greference (figure 5), ϕ ( y, z ) the warping function of the section,
α = (θ 2 − θ1 ) / L , x is the longitudinal axis of the beam (length L) and θ1 and θ 2 denote
the rotation Gof its two edges. Solution of the problem
G consists in defining the displace-
ment field U (u , v, w) under an external load Mx that respect the equilibrium equations,
the boundary conditions and the constitutive equations (linear elasticity). The classical
solution follows as :
∆ϕ ( y, z ) = 0 (25)
4.2 Numerical implementation [17]

In order to solve this plane problem for a section composed of several materials, a
warping-conduction analogy method is used [18]. The problem of the calculation of the
warping function for a section made up of several elastic materials (shear modulus Gi)
is transformed into a problem of 2D conduction in a plate made up of several materials
(thermal conductivity λi). Indeed, the solution of Laplacian equations is trivial in heat
transfer. Thus, if the boundary conditions are known, the problem can be solved with a
usual finite element code.
The notations for the mechanical problem of torsion warping are: ϕ(y,z) is the warping
function - homogeneous with a displacement squared - and Gi the shear modulus of
the elastic material i.
For the thermal conduction problem, notations are as follows: T(y,z) is the temperature
function, λi is the thermal conductivity of the isotropic material i and Φ(y,z)=λ grad
T(y,z) the thermal density flux.
For torsion one obtains ∆ϕ(y,z)=0 in the surface of each material. This equation corre-
sponds to the equation of heat for conduction in steady state ∆T(y,z)=0. The shear
modulus of the elastic material Gi is equivalent to λi, the thermal conductivity of the
isotropic material.
In order to find the boundary conditions on external contour for torsion, one writes that
there are no external forces applied to the contour of the section (external surface of the
beam), with n, the unit vector leaving normal to contour dS, of component ny and nz.
Continuity between two materials is expressed by insuring continuity of the function
ϕ(y,z) and continuity of the forces on the border between two materials.
The conduction problem equivalent to the torsion warping function problem is as fol-
lows:
∆T(y,z)=0 (26)
For the flow imposed on the free face:
⎡ λ z ⎤ ⎡n ⎤
Φ i .n = ⎢ i ⎥ ⎢ y ⎥ (27)
⎣ − λi y ⎦ ⎣ n z ⎦
and "jump" of flow imposed between two materials:
59
(Φ i − Φ j ).n i = ⎡⎢(−(λλi −+λλj )z)y⎤⎥ ⎡⎢n iy ⎤⎥

i
(28)
⎣ i j ⎦ ⎣⎢ n z ⎦⎥
Thus, by applying these boundary conditions, the problem can be solved with any fi-
nite element code able to solve thermal conduction problems (the following computa-
tions are made using the finite element code CASTEM 2000).
This warping function calculation method is used to determine the torsion shear strains
all over a beam section:
⎡ 1 ⎛ ∂ϕ ⎞ 1 ⎛ ∂ϕ ⎞⎤
⎢ 0 α ⎜⎜ − z ⎟⎟ α ⎜ + y ⎟⎥
⎢ 2 ⎝ ∂y ⎠ 2 ⎝ ∂z ⎠⎥ (29)
⎢ 1 ⎛ ∂ϕ ⎞ ⎥
ε = ⎢ α ⎜⎜ − z ⎟⎟ 0 0 ⎥
2 ⎝ ∂y ⎠
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 α ⎛⎜ ∂ϕ + y ⎞⎟ 0 0 ⎥
⎢⎣ 2 ⎝ ∂z ⎠ ⎥⎦
As in [15], the torque moment is obtained by integrating the stresses at the elastic tor-
sion center :
Mx = ∫S (yσ xz − zσ xy )dS (30)
The multifiber framework is a natural integration domain allowing an easy numerical

implementation of this approach into any general purpose finite element code.
4.3 Non-linear extension

The crack pattern initiated by torsion is assumed to remain constant during crack
propagation after nucleation. The strain field along the cross section due to torsion and
warping may initiate the non-linear behavior but the global shape of the crack pattern
is not be affected by local damage. The warping function is thus computed on the basis
of a linear elastic material and is kept constant during the non-linear range.
5 APPLICATIONS : TORSION OF PLAIN CONCRETE BEAMS
The experimental studies used hereafter are from [19]. Several plain concrete beams
have been tested in pure torsion. The beams are composed of three parts: two rein-
forced end parts (properly reinforced, so as to remain elastic) and one plain concrete
part in the middle (where cracking and failure occurred during the tests). A pure tor-
sion loading is applied at both ends of the beams (figure 6). The beams are supported
on two roller supports 1.30 apart, ensuring that the beam is free to twist and to elongate
longitudinally. Two types of sections are investigated: a rectangular section specimen
(R test) and a T-section specimen (T test).
60
5cm
Plain concrete
20cm
20cm
50cm 60cm 50cm
10cm 5cm 10cm

Figure 6 : The 2 series of plain concrete beams tested under pure torsion
Calculations of the warping functions are carried out for the two specimens. Non-linear
calculations of the concrete sections in pure torsion are also presented. It is thus possi-
ble to compute the stresses using the local scalar damage constitutive relation [9]. The
parameters used for the materials are fixed from the experimental compression and ten-
sion tests results of the R test. However, as the Young’s modulus was unknown it is
taken equal to 25000 MPa allowing to reproduce the experimental initial stiffness and
ν, the Poisson ratio, equal to 0.2.
The calculated warping functions for both sections are presented in figure 7. In order to
highlight the importance of the warping function for the initial stiffness but also in the
non-linear range, two types of analysis have been carried out: either by taking into ac-
count the warping function, or by neglecting it (i.e. by giving it a zero value all over
the sections). For the R cross section, the curve giving the evolution of the torque mo-
ments (by integrating the stresses upon the section) with the rotation angle are plotted
in figures 8. Those results show the importance of considering the warping function in
order to reproduce correctly the experimental results. The model without the warping
function has an initial elastic stiffness higher than the model considering warping. The
maximum torque moment is also poorly evaluated. This can be explained by the fact
that the warping function modifies a lot the strain distribution in the section before
crack initiation, and thus the damage in the section, as shown in figure 8. Even though
the estimation of the cross section shear strain field using warping is necessary to de-
scribe correctly the maximum bearing capacity of a reinforced concrete member under
torsional loading, the basic assumption made in computing this warping function (con-
stant) seems to be adequate.
The damage patterns in figure 8 show that the pattern without warping is similar to the
one of a circular section (where no warping occurs) and very different from the one
considering warping. This has a crucial consequence on the bending behavior of a
beam subjected to both torsion and bending.
Work is in progress in order to apply the proposed modeling strategy to a R/C section.
Figure 7 : Warping function

obtained for the R and T-cross
sections
61
Model with 0
warping
200
100
Model without
warping
experiment
1
1 2
Figure 8 : R test, torque moment (KN.cm) versus rotation (10-4 rad/cm) comparisons
and damage field obtained by calculation without and with warping.
6 CONCLUSIONS
This work investigates the use of multifiber beam elements in order to account for
shear and torsion. Constitutive laws are based on damage mechanics and plasticity and
applications are presented for concrete structural elements. More specifically:
At the first part of the paper, the formulation of a Timoshenko multifiber beam element
is elaborated. The element has higher order interpolations functions to avoid any shear
locking phenomena. The element is used successfully to simulate the global response
of R/C columns and U-shaped walls subjected to complex biaxial loading. For those
simulations shear stresses were considered linear. Results at the global but also at the
local level would be certainly improved with the implementation of a robust 2D or 3D
constitutive model for concrete under cyclic loading.
It is necessary though to mention the fact that the behavior of R/C sections under shear
(or torsion) is a result of the anisotropic response of the R/C section with cracks devel-
oped at a certain inclination with respect to the section’s plane. The use of isotropic
damage models and Timoshenko kinematics (where shear stresses are considerer con-
stant in the section) limits the domain of application of the proposed strategy to a slen-
derness more or less close to 1. This is for example shown for the case of R/C concrete
walls having very small slenderness (equal to 0.4) in [20]. A solution – always within
the family of simplified models – is to use some type of truss-analogy models that
transfer forces to the longitudinal and transverse reinforcements (Strut-and-Tie models
[21], the Compression Field Theory [22], the Rotating-Angle-Softened Truss model
[23], the Equivalent Reinforced Concrete [8], [24]).
At the second part of the paper it is shown that for a nonlinear analysis with multifibre
beams subject to torsion, the introduction of warping is crucial in order to reproduce
the torque - rotation evolution. Damage profiles are completely different depending on
considering or not warping and consequently the global behavior is modified: torsion
and bending stiffness, maximum torque... In this paper the assumption made is that the
62
warping function is constant, determined on elastic assumptions even during crack

propagation. The model gives good results for rectangular sections as well as for T-
sections in accordance with the experimental results. The next step will be to test the
proposed strategy for R/C sections under cyclic loading.
7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Pr. Karayannis C.G. from the Democritus University
of Thrace (Greece) for providing the experimental results. Part of this work was
granted from the European program ICONS.
8 REFERENCES
[1]. Paulay, T. and Pristley M.J.N. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry
buildings. Wiley, John & Sons, Incorporated, November 1992.
[2]. Pristley M.J.N. Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering, Revisited. The Mallet
Milne Lecture, IUSS Press 2003.
[3]. Elnashai, A.S. Advanced inelastic static (pushover) analysis for earthquake applica-
tions. Journal of Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 51-69,
2001.
[4]. Lemaitre, J. and Chaboche, J.L. Mechanics of solids material. Cambridge University
Press, 1990.
[5]. Armstrong, P.J and Frederick, C.O. A Mathematical Representation of the Multiaxial
Bauschinger Effect. G.E.G.B. Report RD/B/N 731. 1966.
[6]. La Borderie Ch. Phénomènes unilatéraux dans un matériau endommageable: modélisa-
tion et application à l'analyse de structures en béton. Ph. D. thesis: Univ. Paris VI,
1991.
[7]. Kotronis P. Cisaillement dynamique de murs en béton armé. Modèles simplifiés 2D et
3D. Ph. D., LMT - Ecole Normale Supérieure de Cachan, 2000.
[8]. Kotronis P. and Mazars J. Simplified modelling strategies to simulate the dynamic be-
haviour of R/C walls. Journal of Earthquake Engineering vol. 9, issue 2, pp. 285-306,
2005.
[9]. Spacone E., Filippou F.C. and Taucer, F.F. Fiber Beam-Column Model for Nonlinear
Analysis of R/C Frames. I: Formulation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dy-
namics, Vol. 25, N. 7., pp. 711-725, 1996.
[10]. Friedman, Z. and Kosmatka, J. B. An improved two-node Timoshenko beam finite
element. Computers and Structures, volume 47, no 3, 473-481, 1993.
[11]. Cowper, G.R. The shear coefficient in Timoshenko’s beam theory. ASME Journal of
applied. Mechanics, 33, 335-340, 1966.
[12]. Guedes, J., Pégon, P. and Pinto, A. A fibre Timoshenko beam element in CASTEM
2000. Special publication Nr. I.94.31, J.R.C., I-21020, Ispra, Italy, 1994.
[13]. Pégon P., Plumier C., Pinto A., Molina J., Gonzalez P., Tognoli P. and Hubert O. U-
shaped-wall: Description of the experimental set-up. Report, Joint Research Center
(J.R.C.), Ispra, Italy, 2000.
63
[14]. Thanoon W.A., Paul D.K., Jaafar M.S. and Trikha. D.N. Influence of torsion on the
inelastic response of tree-dimensional r.c. frames. Finite Element in Analysis and De-
sign. 40. pp. 611-628, 2004.
[15]. Schulz M. and Filippou F.C. Generalized warping torsion formulation. J. Engng.
Mech. Pp. 339-347, 1998.
[16]. Li Z., Ko J.M. and NI Y.Q. Torsional rigidity of reinforced concrete bars with arbi-
trary sectional shape. Finite Element in Analysis and Design. 35. pp. 349-361, 2000.
[17]. Casaux G. Modélisation tridimensionnelle du comportement sismique d’ouvrages en
béton armé - Développement de méthodes simplifiées. PhD thesis LMT- Ecole Nor-
male Supérieure de Cachan, 2003.
[18]. Proix J.M., Laurent N., Hemon P., Bertrand G. Code Aster, manuel de référence.
Fascicule R3.08: Eléments mécaniques à fibre moyenne. Document: R3.08.03. Calcul
des caractéristiques d’une poutre de section transversale quelconque, 2000.
[19]. Karayannis C.G. and Chalioris C.E. Experimental validation of smeared analysis for
plain concrete in torsion, Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol. 126. No 6: 646-653,
2000.
[20]. Mazars J., Kotronis P., Davenne L. A new modelling strategy for the behaviour of
shear walls under dynamic loading. Earthquake Engineering and Structural dynamics.
volume 31, issue 4, pp 937-954, 2002.
[21]. Schlaich J., Schäfer I. and Jennewein M. Towards a consistent design of structural
concrete. J. Prestressed Concrete Inst. 32(3), 74-150, 1987.
[22]. Collins M.P. and Mitchell D. Shear and torsion design of prestressed and non-
prestressed concrete beams. J. of Prestressed Concrete Inst. 25(5),32-100, 1980.
[23]. Hsu T.T.C. Toward a unified nomenclature for reinforced concrete theory. J. Struct.
Engrg, ASCE. 122, (3), 275-283, 1996.
[24]. Kotronis P., Mazars J. and Davenne L. The equivalent reinforced concrete model for
simulating the behaviour of shear walls under dynamic loading. Engineering Fracture
Mechanics. 70(7-8), 1085–1097, 2003.
64
A code approach for deformation-based seismic perform-
ance assessment of reinforced concrete buildings
M.Nuray Aydinoglu1
1. Boğaziçi University, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute (KOERI),
Istanbul - Turkey
ABSTRACT: A deformation-based seismic performance assessment procedure is pre-

sented as a code approach for reinforced concrete buildings. It is based on a “piece-
wise linear” implementation of the pushover analysis, where each “pushover step” is
treated as a linear analysis step in between the formation of two consecutive plastic
hinges, for which yield surfaces are linearized as well. The pushover analysis is pre-
sented for the simpler single-mode version, in which plotting the conventional push-
over curve is completely avoided and modal capacity diagram of the equivalent single-
degree-of-freedom system is directly obtained. Proposed procedure estimates the seis-
mic deformation demands in terms of concrete and steel strains at section level and
verifies them against respective capacities defined for various performance levels.
1 INTRODUCTION
Civil engineers all around the world are, by tradition, trained as “linear engineers”.
Consequently, the “nonlinear” seismic evaluation or design process is “linearized” ba-
sically in two ways: Either engineers are told to run linear analysis under somehow re-
duced “equivalent seismic loads” as in the traditional seismic design code applications,
or alternative procedures are offered where the seismic behavior is again “linearized”
in a “dynamic sense” by employing the “secant stiffness” and an “equivalent damping
ratio” of a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) “substitute structure”.
On the other hand, pushover-based seismic evaluation and design methods appear
to provide a great opportunity for engineers to consider and actually calculate and
evaluate the consequences of nonlinear response in a direct manner (Fajfar 2002). It is
most likely that those methods will eventually prove to be superior over the so-called
“direct displacement-based design” procedure based on artificially linearized “substi-
tute structures”. As a matter of fact, pushover-based methods created a great deal of en-
thusiasm in engineering community when they were re-invented in the last decade for
the purpose of estimating seismic deformation demands (ATC 1996, FEMA 1997).
Yet, they have not found a widespread acceptance in practice. Engineers still treat
seismic evaluation or design efforts through such methods as advanced applications
and think of pushover analysis itself as a complex and difficult-to-understand proce-
dure. Generally, they are not well-informed on how the procedure is actually handled
in computer programs. Pushover analysis is still treated as a “black box”.
65
This paper is motivated by a reasoning that practicing “linear engineers” can be

successfully trained to grasp the “nonlinear seismic behaviour” through an incremental
application of a “piecewise linear pushover process” where the nonlinear behavior is
modeled by simple “plastic hinges”. The plastic hinge concept is ideally suited to the
piecewise linear representation of “lumped” nonlinear behaviour at predetermined sec-
tions. Simply linear response is assumed in between those sections as well as in be-
tween the formation of two consecutive plastic hinges. The only additional requirement
for “piecewise linear pushover analysis” is an appropriate linearization of the yield sur-
faces of the plastic hinge sections. An appropriate hardening rule may be adopted.
The proposed procedure involves the estimation of internal force and plastic de-
formation demands at a section level in terms of concrete and reinforcing steel strains
of reinforced concrete sections. Those strains are to be verified against the respective
capacities defined for various performance levels.
2 PIECEWISE LINEAR MODELING OF NONLINEAR BEHAVIOUR
Plastic hinges are zero-length elements through which the nonlinear behaviour is as-
sumed to be concentrated or lumped at predetermined sections. A typical plastic hinge
is ideally located at the centre of a plastified zone called “plastic hinge length” to be
defined at the each end of a clear length of a beam or column. A one-component plastic
hinge model with or without strain hardening can be appropriately used to characterize
bi-linear moment-curvature relationship. Yield surfaces of reinforced concrete sections
can be appropriately linearized as yield planes or yield lines, the latter of which is
shown in Figure 1 for a planar response. Note that number of linear segments may be
increased for an enhanced accuracy.
N
Nyc
Myb, Nyb
Myo M
Nyt
Figure1. Piecewise linearized yield surfaces (lines) of a typical reinforced concrete section.
3 PIECEWISE LINEAR IMPLEMENTATION OF SINGLE-MODE PUSHOVER

PROCEDURE
Single-mode piecewise linear pushover procedure is applicable to low-to-medium rise

regular buildings whose response is effectively controlled by the first (predominant)
66
mode. Slight torsional irregularities may be allowed in the structural model by consid-
ering all components of the fundamental mode shape to be used for the definition of
equivalent seismic loads, as explained below.
Although a direct extension of the pushover procedure to the multi-mode case is
possible through “Incremental Response Spectrum Analysis (IRSA)” (Aydinoglu,
2003, 2004), the present paper is restricted with the single-mode procedure in order to
emphasize the proposed procedure in a relatively simpler manner. In this procedure,
equivalent seismic load pattern can be either retained as an “invariant pattern” during
the entire course of “pushover-history” process or it may be updated in an “adaptive”
manner at every “piecewise linear pushover step” in between the formation of the con-
secutive plastic hinges. In either case, seismic load increments are defined as propor-
tional to the first (predominant) mode shape amplitudes. For the invariant load pattern,
seismic load increment effective at (i)’th pushover step on k’th degree of freedom
(DOF) may be expressed as
(i) (1)
∆f k,1 = mk,1 ∆a1(i) (1a)
(i)
where ∆f k,1 represents first-mode seismic load increment and ∆a1(i) refers to the corre-
(1)
sponding “modal pseudo-acceleration” increment at (i)’th pushover step. mk,1 corre-
sponds to first-mode “participating modal mass” effective on k’th DOF, which is de-
fined at the first pushover step (i=1) and retained “invariant” during the entire course
of pushover history:
(1)
mk,1 = mk Φ (1) (1)
k,1 Γ x,1 (1b)
in which mk and Φ (1)
represent the mass and first-mode shape amplitude of the k’th
k,1
DOF, respectively, and Γ(1)x,1 refers to the first-mode “modal participation factor” at the
first pushover step (i=1) for an earthquake given in x direction.
For the case of an adaptive load pattern Equation 1a and Equation 1b are modified,
respectively, as
(i) (i)
∆f k,1 = mk,1 ∆a1(i) (2a)
(i)
mk,1 = mk Φ (i) (i)
k,1 Γ x,1 (2b)
where superscript (i) on the participating modal mass, mode shape amplitude of the
k’th DOF and on the modal participation factor indicates that “instantaneous” first-
mode shape corresponding to the current configuration of the structural system is con-
sidered following the formation of the last plastic hinge at the end of the previous
pushover step.
Now, any response quantity of interest, such as the increment of an internal force, a
displacement component, a story drift or a plastic hinge rotation, etc developed at the
end of the (i)’th pushover step may be written in a generic form as
r (i) = r (i −1) + ∆r (i) = r (i −1) + r (i) ∆a1(i) (3)
in which r (i) and r (i −1) are the generic response quantities to develop at the end of cur-
rent and previous pushover steps, ∆r (i) is the respective increment and r (i) represents
67
the generic response quantity due to ∆a1(i) = 1 . Each pushover step involves the forma-
tion of a new hinge, for which an increment of modal pseudo-acceleration is calcu-
lated. In order to identify the new hinge and to estimate the response quantities at the
end of the (i)’th pushover step, the generic expression given in Eq.3 is specialized for
the response quantities that define the coordinates of the yield surfaces of all potential
plastic hinges, e.g., biaxial bending moments and axial forces in a general, three-
dimensional response of a framed structure. In the first pushover step (i=1), response
quantities due to gravity loading are considered as r (0) in Equation 3. As part of the
piecewise linearization process of pushover analysis as well as to avoid iterative opera-
tions in hinge identification process, yield surfaces are appropriately linearized in a
piecewise fashion as already explained above, i.e., they are represented by finite num-
ber of lines or planes in two- and three-dimensional response models, respectively. As
an example, planar yield surfaces (lines) of a reinforced concrete section is shown in
Fig.1 where a typical line can be expressed as
α jM j + β j N j = 1 (4)
in which M j and N j represents the yield bending moment and axial force, respec-
tively, at section j while α j and β j refers to coefficients defining the yield lines. For
the (i)’th pushover step, Equation 3 is specialized for bending moment and axial force
as
M j(i) = M j(i −1) + M j(i) ∆a1(i) ; N j(i) = N j(i −1) + N j(i) ∆a1(i) (5)
which are then substituted to Equation 4 and ∆a1(i) is extracted for section j as
1 − α j M j(i −1) − β j N j(i −1)

[∆a1(i) ] j = (6)
α j M j(i) + β j N j(i)
The yield line at section j that yields with a minimum positive [∆a1(i) ] j = ∆a1(i) among
all potential plastic hinges identifies the new hinge formed at the end of the (i)’th
pushover step.
Once modal pseudo-acceleration is determined from Equation 6, any response
quantity of interest developed at the end of that step is obtained from the generic ex-
pression of Equation 3. Note that modal pseudo-acceleration increment, ∆a1(i) , ob-
tained at each pushover step is related to corresponding modal displacement increment,
∆d1(i) , as follows:
∆a1(i) = (ω1(i) ) 2 ∆d1(i) (7)
where ω1(i) represents the instantaneous natural circular frequency at the (i)’th push-
over step. In the “adaptive” scheme it is directly obtained through free vibration analy-
sis to be performed at each pushover step. Thus modal displacement increment can be
68
obtained precisely from Equation 7. However when seismic load pattern is assumed
“invariant”, the instantaneous eigenvalue, (ω1(i) )2 , can be approximately calculated as a
Rayleigh quotient:
∑k mk,1(1) uk,1(i)
(ω1(i) )2 ≅ (8)
∑k mk uk,1(i) 2
(i)
in which uk,1 represents the displacement component at the k’th DOF under equivalent
(i) (1)
seismic loads ∆f k,1 = mk,1 that are defined through Equation 1 for ∆a1(i) = 1 . Adding to
those obtained at the end of the previous pushover step, modal displacement and modal
pseudo-acceleration are calculated at the end of the (i)’th step as
d1(i) = d1(i −1) + ∆d1(i) ; a1(i) = a1(i −1) + ∆a1(i) (9)
Note that essentially ∆d1(i) and ∆a1(i) are the elements of an incremental “modal equa-
tion of motion” of the first-mode equivalent SDOF system (Aydinoglu 2003):
∆d(i) + 2ξ (i) ω(i) ∆d (i) + ∆a (i) = − ∆ug(i)
1 1 1 1 1 x (10)
in which ∆uxg(i) represents ground acceleration increment and ξ1(i) refers to instantane-
ous modal damping ratio. Thus modal capacity diagram of the fundamental mode is
obtained directly as shown schematically in Figure 2, which is nothing but the so-
called “capacity spectrum” (ATC 1996) obtained from the traditional pushover curve
through a modal coordinate transformation. According to Equation 7, an instantaneous
slope of the linear segment of the modal capacity diagram at pushover step (i) in be-
tween plastic hinge points (i–1) and (i) is equal to the fundamental “eigenvalue” of the
structural system at that step as shown in Figure 2. Note that instantaneous slope of the
capacity diagram could turn out to be negative due to P-delta effects as indicated in
Figure 2 when accumulated plastic deformations result in a negative-definite second-
order stiffness matrix. A negative slope means a negative eigenvalue and thus an
imaginary natural frequency, which leads to a modal response that resembles the non-
vibratory response of an over-damped system (Aydinoglu and Fahjan 2003). The cor-
responding mode shape has a remarkable physical significance, representing the post-
buckling deformation state of the structure. Although structural engineers are not fa-
miliar with the negative (or zero) eigenvalues due to negative-definite (or singular)
stiffness matrices, such eigenvalues and corresponding eigenvectors do exist, which
can be routinely calculated by matrix transformation methods of eigenvalue analysis,
such as the well-known Jacobi method (Bathe 1996).
A remarkable aspect of the above-presented procedure is that it does not necessitate
the plotting of conventional pushover curve in terms of base shear versus roof dis-
placement. Instead, modal capacity diagram, which itself is the essential tool for the es-
timation of modal displacement demand, is obtained directly including direct consid-
eration of P-delta effects. It is also worth pointing out that adaptive load pattern based
69
on instantaneous mode shapes at each pushover step provides a natural choice over the
invariant load pattern.
i
a1 i–1 (ω1(i) ) 2 ∆a1(i)
1
∆d1(i)
d1
Figure 2. Modal capacity diagram of the fundamental mode
4 ESTIMATION OF MODAL DISPLACEMENT DEMAND
The above-described process of pushover history analysis is continued until modal dis-
placement calculated by Equation 9 exceeds the first-mode “inelastic spectral dis-
placement”. This means that the last pushover step has been reached and the modal
displacement to develop at the end of this step, d1(p) (indicated by superscript p for
“peak”), is made equal to inelastic spectral displacement, Sdi,1 :
d1(p) = Sdi,1 (11)
This is followed by the calculation of the modal displacement increment in the last step
(p):
∆d1(p) = Sdi,1 − d1(p −1) (12)
The inelastic first-mode spectral displacement, Sdi,1 , can be appropriately defined

through a simple procedure based on “equal displacement approximation” (FEMA
1997, 2000):
Sdi,1 = CR,1 Sde,1 (13)
in which Sde,1 represents the elastic spectral displacement of the corresponding linear
SDOF system with the same period (stiffness) of the initial period of the bilinear ine-
lastic system. Note that cracked section stiffnesses are used in reinforced concrete sys-
70
tems throughout the pushover analysis and therefore the fundamental period of the sys-
tem calculated at the first “linear” pushover step (i=1) is taken as the initial period of
the bilinear inelastic system. Thus excessive lengthening of the fundamental period due
to approximate bi-linearisation process is avoided. In Figure 3, modal capacity diagram
and the elastic response spectrum are combined in a “displacement – pseudo-
acceleration” format. In the case where T1(1) > TS (with TS being the characteristic
spectrum period at the intersection of constant velocity and constant acceleration re-
gions), bi-linearisation of the modal capacity diagram is even unnecessary as indicated
in Figure 3(a), because displacement amplification factor CR,1 is always equal to
unity:
CR,1 = 1 (T1(1) > TS ) (14)
while in the case where T1(1) ≤ TS initial period is still defined as above, however an it-
eration is necessary to calculate the displacement amplification factor using the follow-
ing familiar relationship:
1 + (Ry,1 − 1) TS / T1(1)
CR,1 = ≥ 1 (T1(1) ≤ TS ) (15)
Ry,1
in which Ry,1 refers to the yield reduction factor (Fig.3(b)):

Sae,1
Ry,1 = (16)
ay,1
a1 & Sa,1 a1 & Sa,1

ωS2 =(2π/ S ) 2
T
Sae,1
Sae,1 (T1(1) > TS ) (T1(1) ≤ TS )
ay,1
(ω1(1) ) 2 (ω1(1) ) 2
Sdi,1= Sde,1 d1 & Sd,1 Sde,1 Sdi,1 d1 & Sd,1

(a) (b)
Figure 3. Schematic representation of estimating modal displacement demand
71
5 ESTIMATION OF INTERNAL FORCE AND DEFORMATION DEMANDS
Once inelastic modal displacement demand is estimated as explained in the previous

section, the last modal displacement increment obtained from Equation 12 is substi-
tuted into Equation 3 for i = p and the peak values of all response quantities of interest,
i.e., seismic demand quantities such as internal forces, displacement components, story
drifts and plastic hinge rotations are calculated.
In order to further estimate strain demands at each reinforced concrete section, first
plastic curvature demand, Φ p , is obtained from
θp
Φp = (17)
Lp
where θp and Lp represent, respectively, a typical plastic hinge rotation at the plastic
hinge length, the latter of which may be taken approximately as half the section depth.
This is followed by the estimation of the total curvature demand, Φ t , through an ap-
proximate bilinear moment-curvature relationship of the reinforced concrete section
compatible with the corresponding axial force demand (Figure 4);
Φt = Φ y + Φp (18)
in which Φ y refers to yield curvature of the section. The last step involves the calcula-
tion of compressive concrete strain demand and reinforcing steel strain demands corre-
sponding to the total curvature demand obtained above.
M
Φp
My
Φy Φt Φ
Figure 4. Estimation of curvature demand through bilinear moment-curvature relationship
6 ASSESSMENT OF DEMANDS AGAINST SPECIFIED CAPACITIES
This is the last step in deformation-based seismic performance assessment in which es-
timated internal force demands of brittle nature (such as shear forces) and the bending
72
induced strain demands are verified against specified capacity values. In particular,
performing the seismic assessment through strain demands and capacities in ductile
bending mode appears to be a significant improvement over the conventional proce-
dures (FEMA 2000). Referring to recently drafted extension of the Turkish Code (Min-
istry of Public Works and Settlement 2005), concrete compressive strain capacity can
be specified for unconfined sections as 0.004 at the extreme fiber for all section-based
performance levels. In fully confined sections conforming existing code requirements,
concrete compressive strain capacity is again specified as 0.004 at the extreme fiber for
a “section minimum damage limit”, 0.0135 and 0.018 at the extreme core concrete fi-
ber for “section safety limit” and “section failure prevention limit”, respectively. On
the other hand for all section reinforcing steel strain capacities are specified as 0.01,
0.04 and 0.06, respectively, for those section-based three performance levels, which
correspond to conventional global performance levels of “immediate occupancy”, “life
safety” and “collapse prevention” (FEMA 2000).
7 CONCLUSIONS
Deformation-based seismic performance assessment procedure through pushover

analysis proves to be the most promising nonlinear procedure applicable to both exist-
ing and pre-designed new structures. It is believed that practicing “linear engineers”
can be successfully trained to grasp the “nonlinear seismic behaviour” through an in-
cremental application of a “piecewise linear pushover analysis” where each “pushover
step” is defined as a linear analysis step in between the formation of two consecutive
plastic hinges.
Engineers would realize that such an advanced but “understandable” procedure ac-
tually would not require any additional input data compared to the unrealistic linear or
artificial equivalent linear procedures. It needs to be admitted that when inelastic de-
mands and capacities are expressed in terms of concrete and steel strains of reinforced
concrete sections, verification process becomes more involved. Appropriate practical
tools are being developed in terms of axial force-curvature interaction diagrams com-
patible with strain capacities, which would significantly facilitate the verification proc-
ess.
REFERENCES
ATC – Applied Technology Council (1996). Seismic evaluation and retrofit of

concrete buildings (ATC-40). Redwood City, California.
Aydinoglu, M. N. (2003). An incremental response spectrum analysis based on
inelastic spectral displacements for multi-mode seismic performance evaluation.
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering; 1(1): 3-36.
Aydinoglu M. N. (2004). An improved pushover procedure for engineering practice:
Incremental Response Spectrum Analysis (IRSA). International Workshop on
73
“Performance-based Seismic Design: Concepts and Implementation”, Bled,

Slovenia 2004, PEER Report 2004/05: 345-356.
Aydinoglu, M. N. and Y. M. Fahjan (2003). A unified formulation of the piecewise
exact method for inelastic seismic demand analysis including the P-delta effect.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics; 32(6): 871-890.
Bathe, K. J. (1996). Finite Element Procedures. New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
Fajfar, P. Structural analysis in earthquake engineering – A breakthrough of simplified
non-linear methods. 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
London 2002; Paper No.843.
FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency (1997). NEHRP Guidelines for the
seismic rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA 273) and NEHRP Commentary on the
guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA 274), Washington
D.C.
FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000). Prestandard and
commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA 356), Washington
D.C.
Ministry of Public Works and Settlement – Turkish Government (2005). Chapter 13:
Seismic evaluation and retrofit of buildings, 2005 revision of Turkish Seismic
Code (Draft – to be printed), Ankara.
74
Practical guidelines for performing reinforced concrete
structure pushover analysis using commercial finite
element software
W.T.Yeung1
1. EQE International, UK
ABSTRACT: It is recognised that pushover analysis is a valuable tool for evaluating

the seismic performance of concrete structures. However to date there has been only a
handful of practical guidelines, or analysis procedures available to the general engi-
neering community. In this paper, some of the important practical issues relating to re-
inforced concrete (RC) structure pushover analysis are highlighted, together a simpli-
fied analysis procedure that can be applied using commercial finite element software.
1 INTRODUCTION
It is generally accepted that pushover analysis is a valuable tool for the seismic assess-
ment of reinforced concrete (RC) structures. However, most available guidelines only
cater for the offshore sector, which are primarily for steel structures and thus are not
suitable for RC structures.
Another difficulty that faces engineers is the suitability of commercial finite ele-
ment software. Although most commercial finite element software can perform com-
plex nonlinear analysis, for reinforced concrete modelling, the concrete and the steel
need to be modelled explicitly. This modelling process is computationally expensive
and solution convergence is often a problem due to numerical singularity at the onset
of cracking. It is therefore necessary to find a way to simplify the modelling process,
so that RC structure pushover analysis can be carried out efficiently. In this paper, the
study carried out, for investigating the simplified modelling assumption, based on the
tri-linear RC member moment curvature are reported. Some of the important practical
issues related to concrete structure pushover analysis found in this study are high-
lighted. Finally, a simplified RC structure pushover analysis procedure has been de-
rived, which can be applied using commercial finite element software.
2 SIMPLIFIED RC STRUCTURE PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
The study was carried out based on the SPEAR (Seismic Performance Assessment and
Rehabilitation) structure, a typical three storey RC building found in central Europe. A
finite element model of the structure was constructed using the commercial finite ele-
ment software ABAQUS. The RC member was modelled using 3 noded beam ele-
75
ments. The non-linear characteristic of each individual RC member was defined using
the moment/curvature relationship and is discussed in the following section.
2.1 Tri-linear moment curvature
The nonlinear bending behaviour of a RC member can be characterised using the mo-
ment curvature relationship. However, due to the highly nonlinear nature of RC mem-
ber, the derivation of the full moment/curvature curve is very involved. This limits the
possibility of using such a modelling approach in a typical engineering consultancy
environment. In order to simplify the modelling requirements, the tri-linear moment
curvature approach has been proposed by Stratan and Fajar (2002).
The tri-linear moment curvature is defined by the cracking and member yield condi-
tions. The cracking moment and curvature can be calculated readily using elementary
linear solid mechanics. In this study, the tensile capacity of the concrete has been as-
sumed to be 10% of the ultimate stress in compression. For the yield conditions, design
formulas are available to calculate the yield moment and curvature. These design for-
mulas and analysis procedure are discussed further in the latter part of this paper. It
should be noted that in calculating the cracking and yield conditions, the axial force in
each of the members is required. For this purpose, the change in axial forces due to
seismic loads has not been considered to be significant. To simplify the analysis, the
axial forces in members under gravity loads could be calculated using linear analysis.
To improve on the accuracy, the member secant stiffness should be used. Typical val-
ues of the member secant stiffness ranges from 25 to 50% of the uncracked member
bending stiffness.
2.2 Pushover analysis using tri-linear moment curvature without strength
degradation
The pushover curves of the SPEAR structure in the two directions, obtained using the
simplified tri-linear moment curvature modelling approach is shown in Figure 1. The
pushover curves calculated by Pinto et al (2003) and Jeong and Elnashai (2003) are
used as references for comparison, denoted as UR and UICC respectively. It can be
seen that the pushover curves compare reasonably well up to the structure global yield
against the references. However it was noted that the post yield responses were quite
different. The pushover curves obtained by Pinto et al and Jeong and Elnashai were
based on the distributed plasticity fibre approach. This means the post yield response
of concrete and steel would have been included explicitly in the member capacity
model. Whereas, in the simplified approach, no degradation of member capacity has
been assumed after yielding. In addition, it was recognised that to capture the post
global yield characteristics correctly, large deformation (P-delta) effects must also be
activated in the analysis. The model was thus reanalysed and the results are shown in
Figure 2. The results show that the P-delta effect reduces the structure capacity after
global yielding. However, when compared with the references, the degree of global
degradation is still relatively small. Clearly, this implies the post yielding behaviour of
the structure is controlled by the member capacity degradation characteristics, en-
hanced by the P-delta effects as the structure begins to yield.
76
Pushover curve comparison
500000
450000
400000
350000
300000
Base shear (N)
250000
200000
150000 X direction Y direction
100000 UR (X direction) UR (Y direction)
UIUC (X direction) UIUC (Y direction)

50000
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Displacement (m)
Figure 1. Pushover curve comparison of the SPEAR structure, without P-delta effect.
Pushover curve comparison
500000
450000
400000
350000
300000
Base shear (N)
250000
200000
150000 UR (X direction) UR (Y direction)
100000 UIUC (X direction) UIUC (Y direction)
50000
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Displacement (m)
Figure 2. Pushover curve comparison of the SPEAR structure, with P-delta effect.
77
2.3 Pushover analysis using tri-linear moment curvature with FEMA356 strength
degradation
As discussed in section 2.2, the post yielding behaviour of the structure is controlled by
member degradation characteristics and the P-delta effect. A simplified method to ac-
count for the member degradation in the member moment curvature definition has been
proposed by FEMA356 (2000).
FEMA356 suggests that at ultimate curvature, the moment capacity should be re-
duced to 20% of the corresponding peak moment at yield. The pushover curve ob-
tained for the positive X direction, using this modelling methodology is shown in Fig-
ure 3, denoted as model-d1. It can be observed that the reduction in strength after
yielding is significantly larger than the case when member degradation has not been
considered. In addition, it can be observed that the degradation of the structure is char-
acterised by a series of sudden drops in strength at approximately 150mm displacement
(roof level). This trend is likely to be attributed to the way the member degradation
characteristics are defined. This is in contrast to the results obtained from the refer-
ences, where the strength of the structure is shown to reduce gradually after the onset
of yield.
Push over curve comparison in X direction, stiff joint
500000
450000
UR(+X) UIUC(+X) model-d1
400000
350000
300000
Base shear (N)
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Top displacement (m)
Figure 3. Pushover curve of the SPEAR structure in the X direction, with FEMA356 member
degradation.
78
2.4 Pushover analysis using tri-linear moment curvature with alternative member
degradation characteristics.
An alternative approach in modelling member degradation to the FEMA356 method is
presented here. It is recognised that the degradation mechanism of reinforced concrete
is very complex. Thus instead of modelling this exactly, a simplified lower bound deg-
radation mechanism is sought. It has been decided that this alternative would be based
on the degradation of the concrete in compression. For the SPEAR structure, the resid-
ual strength of the concrete in compression at design ultimate strain (0.004) is ap-
proximately 80%. Thus, the degradation characteristics for the member mo-
ment/curvature has also been assumed to follow the same trend i.e. the residual
moment at ultimate curvature are 80% of the yield moment. It is considered that this
approach is conservative because it assumes member yielding is initiated by the con-
crete reaching its ultimate strength. In reality, the yielding of the section could result
from yielding of the rebars. In this case, there will be little degradation of the member
moment capacity until the concrete at the extreme fibre exceeds the ultimate compres-
sion strength, as there will be some steel strain hardening effect.
This alternative simplified degradation approach was adopted, an example of the
moment curvature definition is shown in Figure 4.
Alternative tri-linear moment curvature (Column C6 1st storey: major axis)
250000
200000
150000
Moment (Nm)
100000
50000
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035
curvature (1/m)
Figure 4. Tri-linear moment curvature with alternative degrading mechanism.
The pushover curves for the X and Y directions obtained using this alternative
modelling methodology are shown in Figures 5 and 6. It can be seen that a better com-
parison with the references has been achieved.
79
Push over curve comparison in X direction, stiff joint
500000
450000
400000
350000
300000
Base shear (N)
250000
200000
150000
UR(+x) UR(-X)
100000 UIUC(+X) UIUC (-X)
50000 EQE (+X) EQE (-X)
0
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Figure 5. X direction pushover curves produced using the alternative member strength degrada-
tion method.
Push over curve comparison in Y direction, stiff joint
500000
450000
400000
350000
300000
Base shear (N)
250000
200000 UR(+Y) UR(-Y)
UIUC (+Y) UIUC (-Y)

150000
EQE (+Y) EQE (-Y)

100000
50000
0
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Figure 6. Y direction pushover curves produced using the alternative member strength degrada-
tion method.
80
2.5 Effects of finite element model mesh refinement

For accurate prediction of post yield response of RC structures, the mesh refinement
level of the finite element model is an important consideration. This is because the re-
sponse is highly sensitive to the plastic hinge length calculation during the analysis,
which in turn is influenced by the mesh density.
Three levels of mesh refinements have been investigated. The first level (Mesh_R1)
has the node spacing in the model set to 1.25m, approximately half of the column
length. The second (Mesh_R2) and third (Mesh_R3) models are based on model
Mesh_R1 but with their columns member node spacing reduced to half (0.625m) and
quarter (0.313m) respectively. It should be noted that the three noded beam elements in
ABAQUS has its integration points located half way between the nodes. Thus, for
model Mesh_R3, the distance of the column element integration point to the col-
umn/beam joint interface is approximately the same as the plastic hinge length, which
has been conservatively assumed to be half member depth. The results from the push-
over analyses are presented in Figures 7 for the X direction. It is shown that the results
from model Mesh_R3 are very similar to those produced by UR, which has been
shown to have good correlation with the experimental test results. In general, it can be
seen that as the mesh density increases, the total base shear capacity of the structure at
global yield reduce, together with some reduction in the yield displacement.
From this investigation, it confirms that for accurate estimation of peak base shear
at yield and the post yield response, the node spacing should be set to be of the same
order as the member plastic hinge length at the plastic zone.
Push over curve comparison, stiff joint

X (+ve) - Mesh_R3 X (-ve) - Mesh_R3
500000
X (+ve)_UR X (-ve)_UR
400000
X (+ve)_UIUC X (-ve)_UIUC
300000
Base shear (N)
200000
100000
0
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Figure 7. Effects of mesh density on pushover curve.
81
3 SIMPLIFIED ANALYSIS PROCEDURE TO PERFORM RC STRUCTURE

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
An analysis procedure, using the simplified tri-linear moment curvature modelling

methodology is presented here. The design equations for the RC members yield and ul-
timate bending properties are based on the work carried out by Fardis et al (2002),
within the SPEAR programme.
3.1 Outline of the analysis procedure
Stage 1: Construction of elastic model to obtain frequency and axial load estimation.
Stage 2: Derivation of non-linear moment curvature relationship for each individual
RC member.
Stage 3: Construction of non-linear finite element for simplified push over analysis.
3.2 Stage 1: Construction of elastic model
The initial part of the simplified pushover analysis is to construct an elastic model of
the RC structure. The purpose of this is to calculate the fundamental frequency of the
structure and to obtain the axial loads in members.
3.3 Stage 2: Derivation of nonlinear RC member moment curvature
1. Calculate the cracking moment and curvature using elementary solid mechanics.
The cracked moment is defined as the limiting moment where one of the extreme fibres
has just exceeded the ultimate concrete tensile stress, when combined with the axial
force effect (due to self weight) as calculated in stage 1. In the absence of detailed ex-
perimental data, the ultimate concrete tensile stress can be taken as 10% of the ultimate
concrete compressive stress. The corresponding cracking curvature can be calculated
as:
εc
φc (1)
yc
Where εc is the concrete strain at the ultimate concrete tensile stress level, and yc is
the distance from the extreme fibre (tensile) to the neutral axis.
yc 0.5 D −
(σ a ⋅ I) (2)
Mc
D is the depth of the section, σa is the stress due to axial load alone as calculated in
step 1, I is the second moments of area and Mc is the cracking moment.
It should be noted that when evaluating existing structure, the “expected strength”
of the concrete material could be used instead of the characteristic strength. The ex-
pected strength is defined as 1.5 times the corresponding characteristic value.
2. Calculate the tensile and compression reinforcement ratios, ρ and ρc respectively.

The normalised axial load ratio to steel yield strength, k, is defined as:
82
N
k (3)
b⋅ d⋅ f y
Where N is the axial force on member (note positive for compression), b and d are
breath and depth of section and fy is the yield stress of the reinforcement bars. Obtain
the normalised compression zone depth, ξy, at yielding from Figures 8, due to yielding
of steel. For intermediate values, linear interpolations should be used.
Normalised compression zone depth, ξy

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
ρc = 0.001, α = 8.4
0.4
ρc = 0.01, α = 8.4
0.3
ρc = 0.001, α = 6.0
0.2
ρc = 0.01, α = 6.0
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Figure 8. Normalised compression zone depth, for yielding controlled by steel (Note: α = Es/Ec)
The normalised axial load ratio to concrete compression strength, kc, is defined a
N (4)
kc
b ⋅d ⋅f c
Where fc is the ultimate compressive stress of the concrete. Obtain the normalised
compression zone depth, ξyc, from Figures 9, due to crushing of concrete. For interme-
diate values, linear interpolations should be used.
83
Normalised compression zone depth, ξyc
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
ρ = 0.001, α = 8.4
0.3 ρ = 0.005, α = 8.4
ρ = 0.010, α = 8.4
0.2
0.1
0
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
ρc – 0.066kc
Figure 9. Normalised compression zone depth, for yielding controlled by concrete
The yield curvature of the RC member is defined as:
(1.8⋅ f c )
φy
E c ⋅ ζ⋅ d
(5)
Where ζ is max(ζy, ζc)
Calculated the yield moment, My, using the expression given below:
(2⋅ M y) ⎛ ζ ⎞
+ E s ⋅ ⎡( 1 − ζ ) ⋅ ρ + ( ζ ⋅ ρ c)⎤
2
E c ⋅ζ ⎜ 0.5 − ⎣ ⎦
⎛ b ⋅ d 3⋅ φ ⎞ ⎝ 2⎠
⎝ y⎠ (6)
The corresponding yield rotation (in radians) is:
⎛ L ⎞
⎜ 2
θy ⎜ φ y⋅ + 0.0025
⎝ 3 ⎠ (7)
84
Where L is the clear span of the RC member.
3. Calculate the ultimate RC member curvature and moment. The ultimate rotation (in
radians) is defined as 0.425
⎛ L⎞
⎛ k c⎞ ⎡⎛ max( 0.01, ω 2) ⎞ ⎛ f c ⎞⎤⎥
0.2
⎜ 2 (8)
θ um 0.4 α st ⋅ ⎝ 0.3 ⎠ ⋅ ⎢⎜ ⋅⎜ ⋅⎜
⎢⎣⎜⎝ max( 0.01, ω 1) ⎠ ⎝ MPa ⎠⎥⎦ ⎝d ⎠
Where ω2 and ω1 are defined as ρcfy/fc and ρfy/fc respectively. αst equals to 0.016 for
hot rolled or heat-treated steel, 0.0105 for brittle cold worked steel.
The ultimate curvature is defined as:
⎛ θ um − θ y ⎞ (9)
φ um ⎜ + φy
⎝ 0.5⋅ d ⎠
Calculate the residual strength of the concrete at the ultimate strain level, taking
into consideration of the confinement effect, express it as a ratio, kratio, to the ultimate
compressive strength. The residual moment capacity of the RC member at ultimate
curvature can be assumed as:
M um k ratio⋅ M y
(10)
Repeat the above procedure all RC members, define the tri linear moment curvature
capacity curves to be used for stage 3. It should be noted that for cyclic loading, the
moment curvature capacity curve may be different depending on the direction of the
applied moment.
3.4 Stage 3: Construction of the non linear finite element and perform pushover
analysis
The mesh density of the original elastic finite element model will need to be refined,
for the purpose of pushover over analysis. As the accuracy of pushover analysis will
depend on correctly capturing the response around the plastic hinge area i.e. the ends
of the member, the mesh density in this region needs to be refined. As a guideline, the
plastic hinge length can be conservatively assumed to be half of the member depth.
Thus, it is suggested that from the joint element, to a distance equal to 0.5d, there
should be at least 2 elements. In addition, at least one mid span node should be in-
cluded along the RC member.
Calculate the apply lateral load pattern: Apply gravity in the first step of the analy-
sis. Once this is has been completed, apply the storey lateral force and perform push
over analysis. The lateral storey force at each level, should be calculated as described
below
85
⎛ w x⋅ φ x ⎞
⎜
⎝
∑
⎜ w x⋅ φ x
⎠
Fh
P (11)
Where wx is the storey mass, φx is the mode shape coordinates as calculated in stage
1 (appropriate as the fundamental mode consistent with the direction of applied storey
force). P is the total applied lateral force and Fh is the applied storey force. It should be
noted that if it is shown from stage 1 that there is tendency for torsion to occur, the ap-
plied storey force should be distributed appropriately along the storey edge.
Apply the total lateral load incrementally, with the gravity load effect included from
previous analysis step. The large deflection, or it sometimes known as nonlinear geo-
metric effect should be switched on during the analysis. Since it is possible for the
structure to exhibit “negative stiffness” after yielding, the default solver in many com-
mercial FE codes, based on the Newton-Raphson method will not be suitable. The
solver should be switched to Arc length method instead.
Monitor the roof displacement (at centre of gravity) against the total base shear.
Plot the pushover capacity curve.
4 CONCLUSION
• The tri-linear moment curvature has been shown to be a viable simplified approach
for pushover analysis; an analysis procedure based on this modelling method has
been presented.
• Mesh density is significant for the accurate prediction of structure yield displace-
ment and base shear. It was found that the node spacing should be of the same or-
der as the plastic hinge length.
• Large deformation effects (P-delta) should be included in pushover analysis.
Reference
Fardis M 2002. SPEAR project 1st year report

Franchin P, Schotanus M and Pinto P 2003. Seismic assessment of the RC full-scale test struc-
ture to be tested at ELSA-JRC Ispra. SPEAR project internal report.
Stratan A and Fajar P 2002. Influence of modelling assumptions and anslysis procedure on the
seismic evaluation of reinforced concrete GLD frames. SPEAR project internal report.
Jeong S H and Elnashai A 2003. Seismic performance and rehabilitation: Pre test analysis. Mid-
America Earthquake Center. Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of
Illinnos at Urbana-Champaign.
86
Quality of construction aspects in seismic fragility assessment
S. Dimova1, P. Negro2 and A. Pinto2
1. CLSMEE-BAS, Sofia, Bulgaria, currently: Joint Research Center, Ispra, Italy
2. Joint Research Center, Ispra, Italy
ABSTRACT: The study deals with the influence of deficiencies in the practical ar-
rangement of the reinforcement and the poor quality of concrete on the seismic vulner-
ability. It is based on experimental tests and numerical simulations of the seismic re-
sponse of single-storey industrial reinforced concrete frames designed according to
Eurocodes. Fragility analysis is performed for four damage states. The epistemic and
aleatory uncertainties in the seismic demand and capacity for each damage state are de-
fined. Different inaccuracies in the construction are modelled and their influence on the
damage states thresholds, uncertainties and fragility is estimated. Recommendations
about enhancement of modern codes for seismic design and retrofitting are drown.
1 INTRODUCTION
One of the reasons for the extent of earthquake damage is often attributed to the build-
ing quality. The damage observations after almost all recent earthquakes refer to cases
of lack of up-to date seismic provisions, inadequate detailing, deficiencies in the prac-
tical arrangement of the reinforcement and poor quality of materials. While the few ex-
perimental and theoretical studies refer to the effects of inadequate detailing or lack of
up-to-date seismic provisions, e.g. Lu et al. (2001), Negro et al. (2004), Pinto et al.
(2004), Calvi et al. (2005), no studies seem to exist as for the effects of poor quality of
execution and materials in otherwise well conceived and designed structures. This
problem is felt as deserving much attention, since it directly affects the seismic per-
formance of structures and has to be properly taken into account in the retrofitting
strategies as well as in the new codes requirements.
The study is based on experimental tests and numerical simulations of the seismic
behaviour of a single storey reinforced concrete (RC) cast-in-situ industrial frame de-
signed according to Eurocodes. The tests were performed in the European Laboratory
for Structural Assessment (ELSA) of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European
Commission at Ispra in the framework of the research project ‘Seismic behaviour of re-
inforced concrete industrial buildings’. During the testing programme, two prototypes
of the industrial frame were constructed:
i. structure erected under special measures for control of the quality of execution,
further referred to as Structure A,
ii. structure erected with normal measures for control of the quality of execution,
which resulted in significant deficiencies in the practical arrangement of the re-
inforcement, further referred to as Structure B.
87
No special survey measures were taken during the construction of Structure B other
than acceptance procedures for the materials and check of the quantities of rebars (and
not of their positioning). The deficiencies were not intentionally introduced rather they
resulted from the lack of continuous survey during the construction.
The study deals with the influence of the deficiencies in the practical arrangement
of the reinforcement and the poor quality of concrete on the structural vulnerability. It
should be noted that both, the concrete and steel of Structure B were of good quality.
The experimental tests and the numerical simulations of the seismic response of the
two structures made it possible to examine the influence of the quality of the practical
arrangement of the reinforcement on the damage states of the structures and on their
vulnerability. The quality of concrete is introduced as a supplementary variable and its
influence on the threshold and conditional probability of extensive damage is studied.
2 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The frame structure shown in Figure 1 was designed according to Eurocode 2 and
Eurocode 8 for ductility class H, as described by Ferrara (2002) in the design calcula-
tions. The storey height was 5.3 m, the two bays were 4 m each. The columns (cross-
section 300X300mm) have been reinforced with 8 φ14 bars, stirrups φ6@50 mm in the
critical zones and φ6@150 mm in the central part. The beams (cross-section
600X300mm) have been reinforced with 8 φ14 bars, stirrups φ6@50 mm in the end
zones and φ6@150 mm in the middle part.
experimental envelope for Structure B
250 experimental envelope for Structure A
yield force Structure A

200 design base-shear
yield force Structure B
Base-shear, kN
150
100
xuStructure B xuStructure A
50
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Displacement, mm
Figure 1. View of the experimental frame Figure 2. Experimental capacity curves of

Structure A and Structure B
The seismic excitation applied exhibited Eurocode 8 compatible spectrum. The ex-
perimental programme of Structure A (Ferrara & Negro 2004) comprised pseudody-
namic tests with peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 5% g, 32% g, 64% g and 80% g,
as well as an additional displacement-controlled cyclic excitation, where g is the accel-
eration of gravity. The experimental programme of Structure B encompassed pseu-
dodynamic tests with PGA of 5% g, 32% g and 64% g, as well as a repeated test with
PGA of 64% g (Dimova & Negro 2004).
88
After removing the concrete cover at the end of the test programme of Structure B,
the following deficiencies were observed: inaccurate spacing of the stirrups (in the
critical regions of the structure the design project envisaged spacing of the stirrups at
50 mm, while the actual spacing measured after the testing was 90-150 mm); wrong
anchoring of longitudinal reinforcement of the columns into the beams, which, together
with the insufficient thickness of the concrete cover, caused the premature separation
of the longitudinal reinforcement from the concrete during the tests; inaccurate placing
or lack of stirrups in the beam-column joints.
In Figure 2 the experimental capacity curves of Structure A and Structure B are
compared. Dimova & Negro (2004) estimated the yielding displacement xy and yield-
ing force Fy from the experimental data as corresponding to the first yielding. For
Structure A xy = 0.131 m and Fy = 214 kN were obtained, for Structure B xy = 0.0956 m
and Fy = 189 kN. The ultimate storey displacement xu was determined as corresponding
to a 15% drop of the experimental peak base-shear force: xu = 0.408 m for Structure A
and xu = 0.304 m for Structure B. The behaviour factor supply was determined as the
ratio of the ‘would-be’ base-shear force obtained by linear elastic analysis as corre-
sponding to xu and the design base-shear strength (Dimova & Negro 2004). The behav-
iour factor supply of Structure B was estimated as 4.27. It is 35% less than the behav-
iour factor supply of Structure A and does not match the behaviour factor demand of
4.95 of Eurocode 8. This experimental result conclusively demonstrates, that the be-
haviour factor supply of structures decreases substantially due to the deficiencies of the
construction and therefore the modern codes for seismic design, which imply high be-
haviour factor demands, should provide special requirements for the quality of con-
struction.
3 FRAGILITY ANALYSIS BACKGROUND
The fragility is defined as the probability of attaining a damage state, conditioned on a

particular value of a random demand y. The safety margin Sf(y) of a seismic response
parameter S(y) with seismic capacity Ri (i.e. the threshold for the i-th damage state, as
defined in HAZUS, 2002) and for a given seismic intensity y is defined as:
Sf ( y ) = Ri / S ( y ) (1)
Under the assumption that Ri and S are log-normally distributed the mean fragility
Pfi(y) (i.e. the mean conditional probability of attaining the i-th damage state) can be
expressed as:
⎛ lnS (y) − lnRmi ⎞
Pf i (y) = Φ ⎜ m ⎟ (2)
⎝ βc ⎠
where: Φ is the cumulative function of standard normal distribution; Sm(y) and Rmi
are the median values of the seismic response S(y) and seismic capacity Ri, respec-
tively; βc is the so-called ‘total’ or ‘composite’ variability, defined as
89
βc = βr 2 + βs 2
under the assumption that βr and βs are statistically independent and βr and βs are
the variabilities of Ri and S(y), respectively, expressed as lognormal standard devia-
tions. According to Hirata et al. (1993) the latter can be presented as
βr = βrr 2 + βru 2 , βs = βsr 2 + βsu 2 (3)

where βrr and βsr are the randomness (or the so-called ‘aleatory uncertainties’) of
Rmi and Sm(y), respectively. They are associated with the inherent variability in the
characteristics of the structure and the environmental (seismic) demands that are im-
posed to the structure and are essentially irreducible under the current engineering
analysis; βru and βsu are the uncertainties in Rmi and Sm(y), which arise from the assump-
tions made in the analysis of the system and from the limitations in the supporting da-
tabases - the so-called ‘epistemic’ uncertainties.
The concept of the mean fragility provides a single fragility curve. When there is a
need to separate explicitly the uncertainty in the capacity from the underlying random-
ness, Pfi(y) at any non-exceedance probability level Q following Kennedy & Ravindra
(1984) can be expressed as:
⎛ ln[S m (y)/Rmi ] + β ruΦ −1 (Q) ⎞
Pfi(y) = Φ ⎜ ⎟ (4)
⎝ βz ⎠
where Φ-1 is the inverse of the standard normal cumulative distribution function and
βz = βrr 2 + βs2
Equation 4 implies a family of fragility curves corresponding to different non-
exceedance probability levels Q.
The maximum interstorey drift (ISD) was considered as seismic response parame-
ter, since it relates directly the ultimate limit state defined by the ultimate storey dis-
placement xu. The maximum storey drifts were calculated for twenty seismic excita-
tions compatible with the response spectrum of the experimental accelerogram. The
peak ground acceleration was chosen as seismic intensity parameter. The seismic be-
haviour of the structures was modelled by means of the computer code IDARC 5.5
(Valles et al. 1996), taking into account the P-delta effects. The models of the struc-
tures created to best fit the experimental behaviour for the respective intensities were
used. In Figure 3 the functional relationships between the maximum storey displace-
ment and PGA for Structure A and Structure B are compared. In the considered case
the quality of construction does not influence substantially the maximum structural re-
sponse. Up to the PGA for which Structure B reaches the experimentally estimated ul-
timate limit state, the largest difference between the responses of the two structures is
in the order of 5%. However, there is a significant difference between the experimen-
tally estimated capacities of the two structures to sustain high intensity seismic excita-
tions, as considered in details in section 5.
90
4 DAMAGE STATES
The damage states of the studied structures are determined by use of the Homogenized
Reinforced Concrete Damage Scale (HRC scale), Rossetto & Elnashai (2003). It com-
prises seven damage states, each of which is defined in terms of the typical expected
structural and non-structural damage. The HRC scale damage index (DIhrc) provides a
numerical reference scale for calibration of the damage states.
500 250
simulated response Structure A
partial collapse
simulated responseStructure B design base-shear
extensive
moderate
200
poor practical arrangement -30%
Base-shear, kN
slight
light
of the reinforcement
150
400 poor concrete -2%
poor practical arrangement
-37% 100
of the reinforcement &
story displacement, mm
poor concrete
Structure A
50 experimental envelope curve
300
first yielding xuStructure A
0
ISD%
0 2 4 6 8 10
100
200
80
60
DIhrc
100
40
20
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 PGA/g 0.6 0.8 1 0 2 4 ISD, % 6 8 10
Figure 3. ‘Quality zone’ Figure 4. Assessment of damage states
In the present study four damage states were considered in accordance with their
description by the HRC damage scale: light damage, moderate damage, extensive dam-
age and partial collapse. Values are assigned to DIhrc according to the damage observed
during the experimental tests of the two structures. In Figure 4 the values of DIhrc are
related to the interstorey drift in percent of the storey height (ISD%). The functional re-
lationships between DIhrc and ISD% obtained by non-linear regression for the two
structures were used to estimate the thresholds of the damage state of partial collapse.
Further, these fits were used to transform the predictive equations (obtained from the
generated accelerograms) for ISD over PGA to DIhrc over PGA and in this way to relate
the damage states with PGA.
In Table 1 the obtained ranges of the ISD% and the respective PGA for the consid-
ered damage states are presented. It should be noted that the threshold ISD% of the
light damage state obtained for DIhrc= 20 corresponds to the Eurocode 8-specified ISD
of 1% for the damage limitation requirement for buildings without non-structural ele-
ments. As seen from Table 1, the construction deficiencies of Structure B produced
lower ISD% thresholds for the moderate and extensive damage and the partial collapse.
The typical storey drift ratios at the threshold of the damage states specified in HAZUS
are presented in Table 1. Although there is good agreement in the description of the
91
damage states in the HRC scale and HAZUS, the latter gives much more conservative
estimate of the thresholds of the states of light, moderate and extensive damage. A
possible reason for this fact is that HAZUS does not distinguish the cases of low-rise
frames with and without non-structural elements. On the other hand, the large intersto-
rey drift at ultimate of Structure A proved a behaviour factor supply of 5.75 (Dimova
& Negro, 2004), which compares well with the Eurocode 8 behaviour factor demand of
4.95 for ductility class H. Hence, the HAZUS prescriptions for the thresholds of the
damage states cannot be automatically transferred to the RC frame structures designed
according to the Eurocodes. To this end, further experimental and numerical studies are
needed for the estimation of the Eurocodes’ specific damage states thresholds.
Table 1. Structural damage states for the experimental frames

Structure A Structure B
Damage grade HAZUS
PGA/g ISD% DIhrc PGA/g ISD% DIhrc
ISD%
Slight < 0.1 <1 < 20 < 0.5 < 0.1 <1 < 20
Light 0.1-0.25 1 – 2.3 20 – 45 0.5 - 1 0.1 - 0.2 1 < 1.8 20 - 45
Moderate 0.25 – 0.85 2.3 – 7.5 45 – 75 1 - 3 0.2– 0.6 1.8 – 5.6 45 - 75
Extensive 0.85 – 1.0 7.5 – 8.5 75 – 95 3 -8 0.6–0.8 5.6 – 7.5 75 – 95
Partial collapse > 1.0 > 8.5 > 95 >8 > 0.8 > 7.5 > 95
5 ESTIMATION OF THE UNCERTAINTIES
5.1 Uncertainties in the response

The response aleatory uncertainties βsr are estimated by statistical analysis of the calcu-
lated responses to generated accelerograms at different PGA levels. Structure A exhib-
ited a constant lognormal standard deviation of 0.111. The coefficients of variation for
Structure B exhibited values between 0.06 and 0.16. For this reason the respective log-
normal standard deviations are presented by a logarithmic fit in the fragility analysis.
The epistemic uncertainty βsu in the modelling of the structural response is esti-
mated according to the recommendations of the JCSS Probabilistic Model Code
(2001), FEMA-350 and FEMA-351. As reported in Table 2, βsu = 0.1 is accepted for
the light damage state and βsu = 0.15 for the other considered damage states.
5.2 Uncertainties in the capacity
The uncertainties in the capacities of the structures are evaluated by statistical analysis
using the available expressions for the ISD at yield and ultimate, corresponding to the
thresholds of the moderate and extensive damage. Due to the lack of analytical expres-
sions for the ISD at the threshold of the light damage and partial collapse, the uncer-
tainties of the threshold of these damage states are accepted to be equal to those of the
moderate and extensive damage states, respectively. In accordance with the experimen-
tal results (Dimova & Negro 2004), it is assumed that the considered deficiencies do
not change the damage patterns of the structures, i.e. the first yielding always appears
in the edge columns and the ultimate limit state is defined by failure of the central col-
92
umns. The ISD at yield is estimated based on the Eurocode 8 expression for the chord
rotations at yield θy. The ISD at ultimate is determined by the expression for the chord
rotations at ultimate θu following Pangiotakos & Fardis (2002).
Table 2. Estimated aleatory and epistemic uncertainties

Structure A Structure B
Limit state/case response capacity response capacity
βsr βsu βrr βru βsr βsu βrr βru
Experimental frames
Light damage 0.111 0.10 0.10 0.15 Fit 0.10 0.10 0.15
Moderate damage 0.111 0.15 0.10 0.15 Fit 0.15 0.10 0.15
Extensive damage 0.111 0.15 0.04 0.198 Fit 0.15 0.198 0.385
Partial collapse 0.111 0.15 0.04 0.198 Fit 0.15 0.198 0.385
Estimation of the influence of the deficiencies from the characteristics of Structure A
Threshold of moderate damage
Poor concrete 0.111 0.15 0.176 0.15
Threshold of extensive damage
Poor concrete 0.111 0.15 0.074 0.385
Poor arrangement of
0.111 0.15 0.177 0.385
the reinforcement
Poor arrangement of
the reinforcement and 0.111 0.15 0.203 0.385
poor concrete
The epistemic uncertainty of the thresholds of the light and moderate damage is
taken in accordance with the JCSS Probabilistic Model Code (2001), which recom-
mends a c.o.v. of the modelling uncertainties of 15% (βru = 0.15) for the bending mo-
ment capacity of RC members. The epistemic uncertainties of the ISD for the thresh-
olds of the extensive damage and the partial collapse states are quantified as βru =
0.198 for Structure A and βru = 0.385 for Structure B in accordance with the study of
Panagiotakos &Fardis (2002), where the coefficients of variation of the chord rotation
at ultimate θu are estimated for forty subgroups of practically identical cases within 875
experimental specimens.
The aleatory uncertainties in the damage states thresholds are estimated considering
the random variables presented in Table 3. The mean values of the concrete strength, fc
and yield strength of the longitudinal reinforcement, fy correspond to their experimental
values. Since no experimental data about the strength of the hoops reinforcement, fyh
were available, their mean strength was accepted to be equal to the mean yield strength
of the longitudinal reinforcement. fc, fy and fyh were assumed to follow normal distribu-
tion with c.o.v. 18.8 % of fc and 9.8% for fy and fyh, respectively. In the estimation of
the chord rotations at yield, the modulus of elasticity of the steel was assumed to be de-
terministic (205 GPa), due to its low variability of 3.3% proved by Mirza &MacGregor
(1979). The random variables representing the strength of the materials fc, fy and fyh
were assumed to be uncorrelated in accordance with the JCSS Probabilistic Model
Code (2001). The axial force in the columns was assumed as normally distributed with
mean value equal to its design value and c.o.v. of 20% (see Table 3).
93
Table 3. Statistical properties of the adopted random variables

Distribu-
№ Variable Mean c.o.v.%
tion
42.75 MPa (Structure A)
1 Concrete strength fc 18.8 Normal
42.25 MPa (Structure B)
2 Yield strength of the longitudinal bars fy 550 MPa 9.8 Normal
3 Yield strength of the stirrups fyh 550 MPa 9.8 Normal
100 kN (edge columns)
4 Axial force N 20 Normal
221 kN (central columns)
Spacing of stirrups sh1 considering inac- 50 mm (Structure A)
5 20 Normal
curacies in the positioning 90 mm (Structure B)
Increase in the spacing of the stirrups
6 ∆sh in the plastic hinge zones due to bad mean of sh1 50 Normal
fixing
Decrease of the shear span ∆Lv due to
0.4Lv1 (Structure A)
7 moment capacity deterioration in the 50 Normal
0.3Lv1 (Structure B)
joints
8 Decrease of the concrete strength ∆fc 0.25 fc 50 Normal
5.3 Aleatory uncertainties due to poor quality of construction

Regarding the deficiencies in the practical arrangement of the reinforcement, the spac-
ing of the stirrups sh was considered as a random variable represented as
sh = sh1 + ∆sh (5)
where sh1 is a random variable accounting for the inaccuracies in the positioning of
the stirrups with c.o.v. of 20% and mean value equal to the design value of 50 mm for
Structure A and to the observed mean value of 90 mm in the plastic hinge zone of
Structure B; ∆sh is a random variable representing the increase of the spacing of the
stirrups in the plastic hinge zone due to bad fixing, ∆ sh was assumed to have c.o.v. of
50% and mean value, equal to the considered mean value of sh1 for each structure.
The deterioration of the moment capacity of the beam-column joints at the post-
yield stage caused by the wrong anchoring of the longitudinal reinforcement of the
columns into the beams and the inaccurate placing or lack of stirrups in the beam-
column joints were taken into account by consideration of the decrease of the shear
span. The shear span Lv is represented as
Lv = Lv1 − ∆Lv (6)
where Lv1 is the design value of the shear span, ∆Lv is a random variable with c.o.v.
of 50% presenting the decrease of the shear span. The calculations have shown that the
consideration of mean values of ∆Lv equal to 0.4 Lv1 for Structure A and 0.3 Lv1 for
Structure B allows a mean value of the ISD at ultimate equal to its experimental value
for Structure B to be obtained.
The poor quality of the concrete (caused for example by poor concrete mix or poor
curing of the concrete) is modeled as
94
f cp = f c − ∆f c (7)
where ∆fc is a random variable with c.o.v. of 50% presenting the decrease of the
concrete strength. The decrease of the concrete strength is considered under the limita-
tion that the resulting residual strength fcp remains higher the strength required under a
permanent design situation. According to the design calculations (Ferrara 2002) the re-
quired compression strength of the concrete is 1 MPa for the lateral columns and 2.2
MPa for the central columns.
The random variables connected with the deficiencies in the practical arrangement
of the reinforcement were considered as normally distributed and assumed to be uncor-
related, since they have different sources. The generated samples of each random vari-
able had size of 1000. The aleatory uncertainty in the damage states thresholds was es-
timated using the Latin Hypercube sampling for combination of the random variables
(Loh 1996). The mean values and c.o.v. of the calculated ISD at yield and ultimate of
the two structures are summarized in Table 4, where the referred numbers of the con-
sidered random variables correspond to those specified in Table 3.
Table 4. Mean values and coefficients of variation of the ISD at yield and ultimate
Random variables Structure A Structure B
Mean, m C.O.V. ,% Mean, m C.O.V. ,%
ISD at yield
1,2,4 0.096 10.1 0.094 10.2
1,2,4,8 0.099 17.6 0.098 16.9
ISD at ultimate
1, 2, 3,4 0.43 3.7 0.38 2.1
1,2,3,4,8 0.42 7.4 0.35 8.2
1,2,3,4,5 0.43 3.9 0.38 2.6
1,2,3,4,5,6 0.38 8.5 0.35 7.2
1,2,3,4,5,6,7 0.30 17.7 0.30 19.8
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 0.27 20.3 0.27 20.4
When calculating the ISD at yield, the deficiencies in the practical arrangement of
the reinforcement were not taken into account, since the used expression does not give
possibility for their implementation. The poor quality of the concrete slightly increased
the ISD at yield. As seen from Table 4, the c.o.v. of the ISD at yield are higher than
those for the ISD at ultimate, when the deficiencies in the construction were not ac-
counted for. This phenomenon could be explained by the fact that the expression for
the chord rotation at yield has relatively strong mechanical basis with few elements of
empirical origin, whereas the expression for the chord rotation at ultimate is fully em-
pirical and gives different weighting factors for the considered random variables.
Hence, the use of such expressions for the estimation of structural capacity requires the
implementation of the modelling uncertainty in the fragility analysis.
In Figure 3 are compared the values of the threshold of the state of extensive dam-
age obtained for different sources of poor quality of construction. The PGA, which the
structure can sustain, is decreased in 2% by the poor quality of the concrete (in the
considered in this work extent), in 30% by the poor practical arrangement of the rein-
95
forcement and in 37% by the combination of poor quality of both, the concrete and the
practical arrangement of the reinforcement. Consequently, the seismic capacity of the
structure is decreased more substantially by the deficiencies in the practical arrange-
ment of the reinforcement, than by the poor quality of the concrete. This fact necessi-
tates the examination of the arrangement of the reinforcement in parallel with the ex-
amination of the quality of the materials, when assessing the seismic performance of
existing buildings. The proven considerable decrease of the threshold of the extensive
damage naturally calls for introduction of correction coefficients for the quality of con-
struction, when assessing the capacity of existing structures according to the modern
codes for seismic retrofitting.
6 ESTIMATED FRAGILITY
In Figure 5 the obtained mean fragility curves (see Equation 2) of Structure A and
Structure B are compared. Structure A demonstrates high reliability, since the condi-
tional probability of extensive damage is less than 1% for PGA < 44% g. At PGA of 1
g Structure A will reach the state of extensive damage with probability of 75%.
extensive damage
Structure B Structure A
good concrete and reinforcement
light damage light damage poor concrete
moderate damage moderate damage poor practical arrangement
extensive damage extensive damage of the reinforcement
partial collapse partial collapse poor practical arrangement
of the reinforcement &
ultimate limit state, 10 storey frame, Eurocode, DC M (Dymiotis) poor concrete
1 Structure B
1
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
Pf
Pf
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0 0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6

PGA/g PGA/g
Figure 5. Influence of the poor practical ar- Figure 6. Contribution of different sources
rangement of the reinforcement on the vulner- of deficiencies to the vulnerability
ability
As shown in Figure 5, the calculated fragility of extensive damage of Structure A,
which is designed for ductility class H agrees well with the fragility curve of Dymiotis
(2002) for the ultimate limit state of a ten storey RC bare frame designed according
96
Eurocodes for ductility class M. The conditional probability of extensive damage of

Structure B is less than 1% for PGA < 23% g. Structure B will reach the state of exten-
sive damage with probability of 75% at PGA of 80% g. The comparison of the fragil-
ity curves of Structure A and Structure B shows that the considered deficiencies in the
construction did not influence the conditional probability of light damage. However,
the improper arrangement of the reinforcement considerably increased the vulnerability
of the structure, since the PGAs corresponding to equal probability of failure decreased
approximately by 6% g, 21% g and 17% g for moderate damage, extensive damage and
partial collapse, respectively.
The conditional probability of extensive damage in case of different sources of poor
quality of construction is compared in Figure 6. The poor quality of the concrete influ-
ences mainly the length of the ambiguous part of the fragility curve due to the addi-
tional uncertainties involved. The combination of poor arrangement of the reinforce-
ment and poor concrete decreases the PGAs corresponding to equal probability of
extensive damage approximately by 0.3 g.
It should be noted, that the fragility curves shown in Figure 6 are calculated based
on the case of Structure A and applying the considered in the previous section ap-
proach for consideration of the different deficiencies in the construction. The good co-
incidence of the fragility curve representing the case of poor practical arrangement of
the reinforcement with those calculated for Structure B gives evidence that the quality
of construction can be taken into account when estimating the structural vulnerability
based on the design data of the structure.
7 CONCLUSIONS
1. The prescriptions of HAZUS for the thresholds of the damage states cannot be
automatically transferred to the RC frame structures designed according to the Euro-
codes (see section 4). To this end, further experimental and numerical studies are
needed for the estimation of the Eurocodes’ specific damage states thresholds.
2. The deficiencies in the practical arrangement of the reinforcement increase the
seismic vulnerability more substantially, than the poor quality of the concrete. This fact
necessitates the examination of the arrangement of the reinforcement in parallel with
the examination of the quality of the materials, when assessing the seismic perform-
ance of existing buildings.
3. In the modern codes for seismic retrofitting the capacity of existing structures
should be assessed by introduction of correction coefficients for the quality of con-
struction. The modern codes for seismic design, which imply large behaviour factor
demands, should provide the corresponding requirements for the quality of construc-
tion. In this context, it would be reasonable to introduce in Eurocode 8 a requirement
for special measures concerning the quality of construction, when implementing the
ductility class H.
Acknowledgements
97
The tests on the structure erected under strict measures for the control of the quality of
execution, were performed as a part of the research project “Seismic Behaviour of Re-
inforced Concrete Industrial Building”, funded in the V Framework Programme under
the contract ECOLEADER. S. Dimova is a JRC Seconded National Expert from
CLSMEE - BAS, Letter No B01-HR/ERO/lca/D(2005)5351. The support of the
JRC/European Commission is acknowledged.
References
Calvi, G.M., Bolognini, D., Pampanin S. & Pavese A. 2005. Experimental seismic assess-
ment of as-built and FRP retrofitted RC frame. Presentation at SPEAR International Workshop
”Seismic Performance Assessment and Rehabilitation”, Ispra, Italy, 4-5 April 2005.
Dimova, S. L. & Negro, P. 2004. Influence of the quality of construction on the seismic vul-
nerability of structures, EUR 21009 EN, European Commission, Joint research Centre.
Dymiotis, C. 2002. Reliability based code calibration for earthquake resistant design, Proc.
JCSS Workshop on Reliability Based Code Calibration, SFIT, Zurich.
Ferrara, L. 2002. Design calculations, Ecoleader research project: Seismic behaviour of re-
inforced concrete industrial buildings. Politecnico di Milano.
Ferrara, L. & Negro, P. 2004. Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete structures: Test on
the cast-in-situ prototype, EUR 21097 EN, European Commission, Joint research Centre.
Hirata, K., Ootori, Y. & Somaki, T. 1993. Seismic fragility analysis for base-isolated struc-
ture, Journal of structural and construction engineering, AIJ, 452: 11-19.
Joint Committee on Structural Safety 2001. JCSS probabilistic model code,
http://www.jcss.ethz.ch/.
Kennedy, R. P. & Ravindra, M. K. 1984. Seismic fragilities for nuclear power plant risk
studies, Nuclear engineering and design 79: 47-68.
Loh, W. L. 1996. On Latin Hypercube sampling, The Annals of Statistics 24(5): 2058-2080.
Lu, Y., Hong, H., Carydis, P. G. & Mouzakis, H. 2001. Seismic performance of RC frames
designed for three different ductility levels, Engineering Structures 23: 537-547.
Mirza, S. A. & MacGregor, J. G., 1979. Variability of mechanical properties of reinforcing
bars, Journal of structural division 105, article ST5.
National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) and Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 2002. HAZUS99 Service Release 2 Technical Manual, Washington, D.C.
Negro, P., Mola, E., Molina, J. F. & Magonette, G. E. 2004. Full scale bi-directional PsD
testing of a torsionally unbalanced three-storey non-seismic RC frame, Proc. 13th WCEE, pa-
per 968, Vancouver, Canada.
Panagiotakos, T. B. & Fardis, M. N. 2002. Deformations of reinforced concrete members at
yielding and ultimate. ACI Structural Journal 98(2): 135-148.
Pinto, P. E., Franchin, P., Lupoi, A. & Lupoi, G. 2004. Seismic fragility analysis of struc-
tural systems, Proc. International Workshop on Performance Based Design, Bled, Slovenia.
Rossetto, T. & Elnashai, A. 2003. Derivation of vulnerability functions for European-type
RC structures based on observational data, Engineering Structures 25: 1241-1263.
Valles, R.E., Reinhorn, A. M., Kunnath, S. K, Li, C. & Madan, A. 1996. IDARC 2D. A
computer program for the inelastic damage analysis of buildings. Technical report NCEER-96-
0010, University of New York at Buffalo, New York.
98
Seismic fragility analysis of RC structures: use of response
surface for a realistic application
P. Franchin1, A. Lupoi1, P.E. Pinto2, M.Ij. Schotanus3

1. Research fellow, Dept. of Structural & Geotechnical Engineering, Univ. of Rome “La
Sapienza”, Italy.
2. Professor, Dept. of Structural & Geotechnical Engineering, Univ. of Rome “La Sapienza”,
Italy.
3. PhD Candidate, European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk (ROSE
School), Pavia, Italy.
ABSTRACT: A statistical approach for seismic reliability problems is applied in the

assessment of an RC frame structure. The procedure establishes a response surface,
characterised by a statistical model of the mixed type, to represent the seismic capacity
in an analytical limit-state function. The fragility function of the system is then calcu-
lated by FORM analysis, with the constructed empirical limit-state function as input.
The application concentrates on the clarification of implementation issues, and con-
firms the versatility of the method in realistic problems.
1 INTRODUCTION
Reinforced concrete structures can fail according to a wide variety of modes: flexural
deformation failure of members in bending, shear failure of columns, tensile or com-
pressive joint failure among others. The capacity models for all these failure modes are
characterised by a fairly high degree of (epistemic) uncertainty, mainly due to a yet in-
complete knowledge of the underlying behaviour, especially where complex interac-
tion phenomena are concerned, e.g. the one between shear, torsion and bending. This
uncertainty adds to the one arising from the inherent randomness in the material prop-
erties. An equal level of uncertainty is present in the response (demand) analysis.
A response surface approach arises as a natural choice to lighten the computational
burden when these capacity and demand models enter in reliability analysis. In the
model used, which has been already extensively validated (Franchin et al. 2003a,b), the
failure probability is expressed, following a well-established format in earthquake en-
gineering, as a function of the earthquake intensity only, i.e. as a fragility function.
The method is here applied in the assessment of a real three-storey 3D RC structure,
designed solely for gravity loads according to the design and construction practice of
the early 70’s in southern Europe. Actual test data are available, and the probabilistic
assessment is compared with the real behaviour of the structure.
99
2 PROBABILISTIC ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
2.1 Statement of the seismic reliability problem

Let x be a k × 1 random vector completely characterised by its joint probability
density function f ( x ) , whose components can be of load or resistance type. In the
space of x a limit-state function (LSF) is defined, usually indirectly in terms of the re-
sponse of the structure r ( x ) , as a scalar function g ⎡⎣ r ( x ) , x ⎤⎦ that takes on positive
values as long as the structure is safe in the corresponding failure mode, and negative
{ }
values when it has failed, the boundary x g ⎡⎣ r ( x ) , x ⎦⎤ = 0 between the two conditions
being called limit-state surface.
For seismic problems the response, and possibly the LSF itself, need to be described
as functions of time t . This requires that the LSF is re-written as time-dependent:
g ⎡⎣ r ( x, t ) , x, t ⎤⎦ . The reliability is therefore also time-dependent, and can be expressed
as:
{ }
Pr min g ⎡⎣ r ( x, t ) , x, t ⎦⎤ < 0
t∈[ 0,T ]
(1)
where in t = 0 a safe state is assumed, and T is the time interval of interest (the dura-
tion of a seismic event). Using Equation 1, the fragility is defined as:
{
Pr min g ⎡⎣ r ( x, t ) , x, t ⎤⎦ < 0 IM
t∈[ 0,T ] } (2)
i.e. as the failure probability conditional to an intensity measure (IM) characterising the
ground-motion. Following current practice, the spectral acceleration for the fundamen-
tal period of the structure, S a (T1 ) , is used for this purpose.
When dealing with RC structures, the response in the inelastic range, that is neces-
sary for the evaluation of LSF’s representing collapse, generally requires a demanding
numerical (finite element) time-history analysis, corresponding to a realisation of x . In
order to solve Equation 2, it is then often necessary to pass to the computationally ex-
pensive class of simulation methods. In that case, reduction of the effort associated
with these latter is mandatory if realistically complex systems are to be considered.
A factor that has large impact in decreasing the required number of simulations is
the choice of the form of the LSF. Typically it is put in a capacity ( C ) minus demand
( D ) format. The dimensionally homogenous quantities C and D then represent re-
sponse values such as bending moments, displacements etc., as needed in the criteria
defining the various failure modes. One effective formulation, after (Veneziano et al.
1983), is obtained by expressing both capacity and demand in terms of spectral accel-
eration:
g ( x ) = S a ;C ( x ) − S a ; D (3)
where Sa;C(x) represents the spectral acceleration for which the maximum response in
time reaches the limit-state, and Sa;D is the demand spectral acceleration. The fact that
Sa;D is a parameter implies that once an analytical expression for the capacity Sa;C(x)
has been formulated, one can build the entire fragility solving the problem repeatedly,
changing the value of Sa;D.
The format is generalised to the system case by defining:
100
S a ;C ( x ) = min {Sa ;C m ( x )} (4)

m
i.e. taking Sa;C(x) as the lowest value of the m distinct failure modes that leads to sys-
tem failure. This means that failure is assumed to be attained as soon as the structure
fails according to any of the included failure modes, which is equivalent to considering
a series system. The most important feature of using the formulation in Equations 3
and 4 is that a unique LSF is used irrespective of the number m of failure modes and
that the interaction between the failure modes is implicitly accounted for.
Within this framework, the response surface technique will be employed as a means
to obtain an analytical approximation for the capacity term Sa;C(x) with a limited num-
ber of simulations. The constructed response surface is then used as input for FORM
analysis to calculate fragility values.
2.2 Mixed-model response surface
Let now x be a k × 1 vector of controllable basic variables. Let Y be a measurable
random variable, representing Sa;C ( x ) , whose mean value is believed to depend, in an
unknown fashion, on the quantities collected in x . Let µY ( x ) be a model of this de-
pendence. Let one further assume that Y can be expressed in the additive form:
Y ( x ) = µY ( x ) + ε (5)
where ε is a random deviation term with zero-mean, called error term, assumed as
Gaussian distributed, that gives account of the random variability of Y around its true
mean, as well as of the inadequacy of the mean model µY ( x ) to represent the relation
between the true mean and x , also due to the limited statistical information from which
its parameters are estimated.
Establishing an empirical/analytical model of the dependence of the response Y on
x such as that represented by Equation 5 is the aim of the response surface technique,
and comprises three stages: the choice of the model; the collection of data in the form
of {Y , x} pairs, from carefully planned simulations (using notions from the branch of
statistics called experimental design); the estimation of the model parameters (using the
techniques of statistical inference). Each of these issues is addressed extensively in
Franchin et al. 2003a, b, and is briefly summarised in the following.
As far as the choice of the model for µY ( x ) is concerned, linear or quadratic mod-
els of Y in x are classically postulated that explicitly relate Y to the components of
x through a number of unknown model parameters. Since the size of the experimental
basis needed to estimate these parameters grows rapidly with increasing size of x ,
cases with more than six variables are rarely found in the applied statistical literature.
As an adequate mathematical description, even in its most simplified form, requires
the introduction of a large number of random variables (in the order of hundreds-of-
thousands, e.g. random amplitudes and phases in a spectral representation, random
pulses in a time-domain representation), it is out of the question to explicitly account
for the dependence of Y on all variables needed to describe earthquake loading.
The alternative is to account for their effect in a global, implicit, way. To this end
the vector x is partitioned into two sub-vectors x1 and x 2 , collecting the few variables
whose effect is modelled explicitly and those many whose effect is modelled globally,
respectively. The x 2 sub-vector thus represents uncertainty related to the earthquake,
and its implicit effect is modelled resorting to the concept of random factors (Searle et
101
al. 1992). These latter are physical factors that randomly affect the response, assumed
to do so in an additive manner. The corresponding mixed type response model is:
Y ( x1 , x 2 ) = z ( x1 ) β + δ + ε (6)
where z ( x1 ) β is called the fixed-effect part of the model, while δ is the random-
effect, i.e. the effect of the random factor x 2 . The fixed-effect part of the model defines
a classical response surface, i.e a linear combination of p generally non-linear func-
tions of x1 , usually referred to as explanatory functions:
p
z ( x1 ) β = ∑ βi zi ( x1 ) (7)
i =1
where z ( x1 ) is the 1 × p row vector of explanatories, and β collects the p model pa-
rameters. For what concerns the random factor effect, making the common assumption
that δ is a zero-mean Gaussian variable, the only unknown is its variance σ δ2 .
The design of experiments to provide data for the estimation of the model in Equa-
tion 6 is a delicate issue. A convenient experimental plan for producing data to esti-
mate the parameters of a quadratic surface is the central composite design (CCD),
which consists of a complete two-level factorial design augmented with a star design
(Box et al. 1987). The former consists of taking two levels (low, ξ = −1 , and high,
ξ = +1 ) for each of the basic variables and performing an experiment for every one of
the 2k resulting combinations. The star design adds two additional points at level
ξ = ±α (with α > 1 , see for example Box et al. 1987) for each basic variable in x1
plus n0 centre points (at level ξ = 0 ), resulting in a total of n = 2k + 2k + n0 experi-
ments. In this case, where the basic variables are random variables with a known dis-
tribution, a convenient choice is to define ξ = ( x − µ ) σ (Cochran et al. 1957).
The CCD allows estimation of the parameters of the fixed effect part only, and a
modification is necessary to also allow estimation of the random factor effects. One at-
tractive and well-established technique, called blocking of the experiments, provides a
solution to this problem (Box et al. 1987). It is historically used when the experiments
cannot be carried out in homogeneous conditions, for instance because there is some
uncontrollable and unknown source of heterogeneity and the effect of this latter has to
be determined in order to discount it. Here the situation is reversed, and the experi-
ments are carried out purposely introducing the source of heterogeneity (different
earthquake records), to be able to determine its contribution to the variability of Y ,
represented by δ .
If the n experiments are grouped (blocked) into b blocks with ni experiments each,
and to each block a different ground-motion record is assigned, i.e. the dynamic finite
element analysis is carried out with that record as input, the results of the n experi-
ments can be collectively written in matrix form as:
Y = Zβ + Bδ + ε (8)
where δ is a b × 1 vector that collects the block effects, i.e. the random (factor) effects,
and B is a n × b matrix that collocates each random effect to the correct block of ex-
periments:
102
⎡ 1n1 0n1 " 0n1 ⎤

⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0n 1n2 " 0n2 ⎥
B=⎢ 2 (9)
⎢ # # % # ⎥⎥
⎢ 0n 0nb " 1nb ⎥⎦
⎣ b
where 1ni and 0ni are vectors of length ni made up of ones and zeroes, respectively.
The block effects collected in δ are a finite number of observations of the random
variable δ , from which the distribution of the latter is estimated. All other symbols in
Equation 8 have the same meaning as before.
While for the classical response surface the model parameters β are obtained from
Ordinary Least Squares estimation independent of the error term variance, for the
model given in Equation 7 this is not possible: the parameters β have to be estimated
together with the variances σ δ2 and σ ε2 . This is necessary because the experiments are
no longer uncorrelated. In fact, from the model given in Equation 8 one has:
CYY = E ⎡( Y − µ Y )( Y − µ Y ) ⎤ = E ⎡( Bδ + ε )( Bδ + ε ) ⎤ = BBT σ δ2 + Iσ ε2
T T
(10)
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
where BBT is a non-diagonal matrix.
Estimates of β , σ δ2 and σ ε2 can be obtained by Maximum Likelihood estimation
using the likelihood function:
L(β, C YY Y ) = f (Y β, C YY ) = C YY [ ]
1
exp − (Y − Zβ ) C −YY (Y − Zβ ) (11)
− 1 T
2
whose maximisation is a constrained optimisation problem since σ δ2 and σ ε2 must

both be positive.
3 APPLICATION
The method described in the previous section is here applied in the fragility analysis of
a real three-storey 3D RC structure (Fig. 1), designed solely for gravity loads according
to the design and construction practice of the early 1970’s in southern Europe, i.e. in-
cluding plan irregularity and strongly eccentric beam-column connections, added to
overall poor local detailing, scarcity of rebars, insufficient confinement, weak joints
and older construction practice.
The building has been designed, studied, constructed and pseudo-dynamically tested
under bi-directional loading within the framework of the EU funded SPEAR project
(Kosmopoulos et al. 2003, Negro et al. 2004). It has been purposely designed to exhibit
all the failure modes typical to non-seismically designed structures, and thus it was ex-
pected to experience flexural yielding at the bottom and top of the square columns, in
particular at the first floor, together with bar-slippage in the area of lap splicing at the
bottom of first and second floor columns.
103
3000 5000 1700 Columns C1-C5 & C7-C9

250x250 4ø12
C5 C1 C2
5500 stirrups ø8@250

6000
Column C6
250x750 10ø12
C9
C3 C4
5000 4000
Y C6 C7
C8
X stirrups ø8@250
Figure 1. Plan view of the structure with details of column cross-sections (dimensions in [mm])
The application described here is aimed at showing the potentiality of the procedure
discussed in the previous section in a realistic situation. The fragility analysis carried
out takes into account all the indications of previous research concerning the random
factor representing uncertainty due to earthquake loading (Franchin et al. 2003b). Data
required for the assessment, both in terms of capacity models and section modelling,
are taken from fib 2003. At the end of this section, a comparison is made with the out-
come of the tests as carried out at the ELSA laboratory of the Joint Research Centre in
Ispra, Italy (Negro et al. 2004).
3.1 Mechanical parameters influencing the response
Only a limited number of variables, taking account of the effect of variations in the
mechanical parameters on the response, can be introduced as explicit variables for the
construction of the response surface. It is therefore convenient to work in the space of
basic material properties, as they enable the description of sectional variability with a
minimum of variables.
In this application, the variability in the response is assumed to be essentially influ-
enced only by the concrete cylinder peak stress f c and the steel yield stress f y . These
two variables describe the randomness of the material properties for the whole struc-
ture, i.e. their spatial variability throughout the structure is not considered.
In order to also account for this spatial variability, additional random-effect vari-
ables should be introduced (Franchin et al. 2003a). In this application a simpler ap-
proximate approach is adopted, consisting in inflating the variability of the steel yield
strength by doubling its coefficient of variation (CoV), to account for variations in the
amount of steel present in the section.
Following the recommendations of fib 2003, the remaining parameters describing
the constitutive behaviour of the unconfined and confined concrete on the section level
are calculated using well-established relationships relating them directly to f c , f y and
other section properties that are here considered as deterministic. A bi-linear steel
model is fully determined by its yield strength f y , and deterministic stiffness coeffi-
cients.
104
The mean values of the material properties considered are shown in Table 1, to-
gether with the values of the coefficient of variation typically associated with each of
them. They are both assumed to be log-normally distributed.
3.2 Definition of capacity: failure modes of RC structures
As the frame under consideration is likely to fail due to the loss of load-bearing capac-
ity of one or more columns, two relatively well established criteria are selected for
flexural and shear failure of these structural members. Furthermore, as the joints are
not reinforced, criteria for the joint shear capacity are also considered. Alternative
modes of failure may be introduced, without affecting the general procedure.
3.2.1 Flexural failure

Failure in flexure is attained when the maximum core compression strain reaches the
crushing limit εcc,u. The capacity is related to the basic variables through the confine-
ment model in Paulay et al. 1992:
⎛ ρ s ,tr f yst ⎞
ε cc,u = ⎜ 0.004 + aε su ⎟ ⋅ ε ε ,ccu (12)
⎝ f cc ⎠
where εsu, ρs,tr and fyst are the rupture strain, volumetric ratio and yield stress of the con-
fining steel and fcc is the confined concrete peak stress. A modification for old-type
columns as suggested by Panagiotakos et al. 2001 is made, using a = 0.6 instead of the
original value of a = 1.4 .
To account for uncertainty and incompleteness in Equation 11, a model error term
εε,ccu is used. It is included in the vector x1 and its properties are given in Table 1.
3.2.2 Shear failure

A shear strength model suggested in Kowalsky et al. 2000 is used to assess the shear
resistance of members. Use of this model is deemed appropriate, as it is one of the few
that enables computation of the capacity under bi-axial loading. The model considers
the shear capacity as the sum of three distinct components:
( )
V = Vc + Vs + V p ⋅ εV (13)
where Vc represents the strength of the concrete shear resisting mechanism, Vs the ca-
pacity attributed to the steel truss mechanism, and Vp a component attributed to the ax-
ial load.
In fib 2003 this model, originally calibrated to circular columns, is evaluated using
an extensive database of columns, finding a mean value of the ratio of experimental to
calculated results equal to 0.86 for rectangular sections and a corresponding CoV of
26.1%. A model correction term, represented in Equation 13 by εV, is therefore adopted
and included in x1 . Its properties are given in Table 1.
3.2.3 Joint-panel shear failure

Following fib 2003, the joint resistance is specified directly in terms of diagonal prin-
cipal stresses at the joint centre. This approach is considered more consistent with the
underlying mechanics of the problem, as it illustrates in a transparent manner the influ-
ence of axial load acting on beams or columns on joint cracking and ultimate strength.
105
This is especially true for the connections of the test structure, which lack special shear
reinforcement, suggesting that failure is attained when cracking or crushing of the
panel zone occur. In that case, diagonal tension cracking or crushing in compression
may be assumed to occur in the joint if either one of the tensile or compressive princi-
pal stresses exceeds the following limits, respectively:
n ⎛n ⎞
σ t ,c = z ± ⎜ z ⎟ + ν 2
2
⎪⎧ ≤ 0.29 f c ( tension )
⎨ (14)
2 ⎝ 2⎠ ⎪⎩≥ −0.5 f c ( compression )
where nz is the compression stress due to vertical axial forces in the adjacent columns,
and ν the joint shear stress.
Table 1: Properties of the basic random variables ( x1 )
Mean Units CoV
fc 25 [MPa] 0.20
Material uncertainty
fy 450 [MPa] 0.20
Model uncertainty
ε ε,ccu 1 0.20
εV 0.86 0.26
3.3 Further settings for the simulations
Following the guidelines for minimum number and size of the blocking, as discussed in
(Franchin et al. 2003b), results in an experimental plan requiring 90 numerical simula-
tions divided into 9 blocks, each associated with a specific accelerogram. Since the 3D
frame requires ground-motion input in 2 directions, 9 two-component records are se-
lected to be used in the analysis, given in Table 2.
Consistent with attenuation relationships used in hazard computation (see Sabetta et
al. 1996), which use the larger of the two horizontal components of the motion in the
regression analysis for predictive equations of response spectra, the fragility is ex-
pressed in terms of the larger spectral acceleration of the two components, at the fun-
damental period of the structure. As the direction of the motion cannot be predicted,
each pair of records is applied twice, first with the strongest one along axis X, and then
along axis Y (see Fig. 1 for axis location). The worst case scenario is used in the final
computation of the risk.
Regarding the choice of the period, a previous study (Franchin et al. 2003b) indi-
cated that it should reflect to some extent the non-linear behaviour of the response.
Therefore the period is determined from displacement time-histories for the mean
structure (i.e. the structure characterised by mean material properties) subjected to a re-
cord scaled to lead it to incipient yielding. The characteristic period T = 0.8s is chosen
as the mean of the X and Y period, as collapse can occur with the stronger (and there-
fore characterising, as explained above) component in either direction.
A second order polynomial is developed on the four basic variables of Table 1:
ln ⎡⎣ S a;C ( f c , f y , ε ε ,ccu , εV ) ⎤⎦ = β 0 + β1 f c + β 2 f y + β 3ε ε cc ,u + β 4ε V + β 5 f c 2 + β 6 f y 2 +
(15)
+ β 7ε ε2,ccu + β8εV 2 + β9 f cε ε cc ,u + β10 f yε ε cc ,u + β11 f cεV + β12 f yε V + δ eq + ε
where all linear and quadratic terms are retained, but the interaction terms between
concrete and steel strength and between the model errors are omitted. Next to the error
term ε one random factor δeq is included, representing the earthquake.
106
Table 2: Accelerograms used in numerical analyses

Name Date Station name M R PGA Td Sa (T=0.8s)
dir.1 dir. 2
(m/d/y) [km] [g] [s] [g] [g]
1 Friuli 05/06/76 Tolmezzo 6.5 37.7 0.351 36.32 0.542 0.357
2 Loma Prieta 10/18/89 Apeel 7 Pulgas 7.1 47.7 0.156 39.95 0.290 0.181
3 Victoria 06/09/80 Cerro Prieto 6.4 34.8 0.621 24.45 0.477 0.305
4 Spitak 12/07/88 Gukasian 7.0 30.0 0.199 19.90 0.436 0.166
5 Imperial V. 10/15/79 Cerro Prieto 6.9 26.5 0.169 63.70 0.415 0.162
6 Coalinga 05/02/83 Parkfield, Vin.Can. 6.5 32.3 0.137 40.00 0.262 0.256
7 Northridge 01/17/94 Sandberg, Bald Mt 6.7 43.4 0.098 40.00 0.255 0.123
8 Loma Prieta 10/18/89 Palo Alto Lab. 7.1 35.6 0.278 39.57 0.394 0.360
9 Kobe 01/16/95 TOT 6.9 57.9 0.076 39.00 0.378 0.252
3.4 Results
Each experiment consists in repeatedly performing a time-history analysis for a realisa-
tion of the variables in x scaling the associated accelerogram until the lowest of the
capacity/demand ratios representing the several failure modes reaches unity. Once the
S a;C ( x ) values for all the experiments are determined, the parameters of the response
surface are computed with reference to the model described in Equation 15, using
Maximum Likelihood estimation. Subsequently, FORM analyses are carried out for a
range of S a;D values to calculate the fragility, yielding the curves in Figure 2. Three
fragilities are shown, one for the case in which the strongest (and characterising) com-
ponent of the ground-motion is applied in the X direction, one when this component is
applied in the Y direction, and finally one taking for each experiment the minimum
S a;C of the two, indicated as upper bound fragility. This last one is used as the final
fragility of the frame.
That the response surface is indeed a combined surface for multiple collapse
mechanisms can be seen from Table 3, which reports the occurrences of the main fail-
ure modes for all 90 experiments that form the statistical basis of the final response sur-
face. Modes 1 to 27 represent flexural failure in the columns: the first 9 for each of the
corresponding columns of the first floor (Fig. 1), the second 9 (from 10 to 18) for each
of the corresponding second floor columns, etc. Similarly, modes 28 to 54 represent
the corresponding shear failure modes. Finally, modes 55 to 72 and 73 to 90 stand for
joint-panel tension and compression failure respectively, e.g. mode 69 corresponds to
joint-panel shear failure in tension of column C6 on the second floor.
Table 3: Modes determining collapse of the structure
Failure Modes 57 58 59 60 62 65 69 70
No. of failures 5 5 7 4 12 6 38 3
3.5 Discussion of results, comparison with test data and sensitivity analysis
Table 3 shows dominance of joint tensile failure, with the beam-column connections of
column C8 (see Fig. 1) on the first floor and column C6 on the second floor accounting
for over 50% of the failures. These results are apparently at difference with the results
from the Pseudo Dynamic Tests, as reported in Negro et al. 2004, which, for a peak
ground acceleration of 0.20g, showed spalling and flexural cracking at the top of the
107
columns, with main damage concentrated at the top of the central column (C3) and at
the flexible edge columns (C2, C4 and C7) of the second floor. Some damage was also
detected in the beams and floor slabs connected to the strong column C6.
1 1
0.9 0.9
Upper bound fragility Jpt = 0.29√fc
0.8 Strong component in X 0.8
Jpt = 0.40√f
Strong component in Y c
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0 0
10 10
Pf
0.5
Pf
0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
−5 −5
0.1 10 0.1 10
0 0.05 0.1 0 0.05 0.1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Sa [g] Sa [g]
Figure 2. Fragilities obtained by considering Figure 3. Fragility obtained considering

different directions of loading higher joint-panel shear capacity
These results may indicate that the capacity values predicted by Equation 14 under-
estimate the actual strength of the joint-panel in tension. When discussing the capacity
criterion, fib 2003 indicates various levels for the tension cracking. These levels are re-
lated to the type of confinement that characterises the joint, and vary from 0.2×√fc for
T-joints with bar end hooks and smooth bars, to 0.42×√fc for T-joints with beam bars
bent into the joint. However, these models have been calibrated using data from 2D
tests, and thus do not give any indication of the favourable (or unfavourable) effect of
the 3D configuration of the joints in the test structure. It is also noted that the floor slab
of 150mm (30% of the beam height) will have a confining/stiffening effect on the joint
region.
To examine the sensitivity of the results to the estimate of the joint capacity, the
analyses are repeated using a value of 0.40×√fc for the joint tensile strength. For this
case only the simulations in Y direction are performed, as Figure 2 indicates that the
upper bound fragility is equal for practical purposes to the fragility with application of
the strong component in Y direction. The resulting fragility function is shown in Figure
3.
Table 4: Risk values
Risk
Jpt = 0.29√fc 0.0238
Jpt = 0.40√fc 0.0143
It appears that the relatively modest increase in the joint capacity leads to a consid-
erably higher seismic resistance. This is confirmed by the Sa;C values obtained from the
simulations given in Figure 4, which show a shift of the capacity to higher values (the
median goes up from 0.243g to 0.357g).
108
Jpt = 0.29√fc Jpt = 0.40√fc
8 Empirical CDF 8 Empirical CDF

1 1
No. of realisations
No. of realisations
6 6
0.5 0.5
4 4
0.243 0.357
0 0
0 S 1.5 0 S 1.5
a;C a;C
2 2
0 0
0 0.5 S [g] 1 1.5 0 0.5 S [g] 1 1.5
a;C a;C
Figure 4. Distribution of Sa;C for original (left) and modified (right) joint capacity
A more meaningful assessment of the sensitivity of the results to the changes in the
model is represented by the value of the overall risk, given in Table 4, calculated from
the convolution of the fragilities with a given hazard curve for a site in Southern Italy,
representative of a zone with moderate to high seismic activity. It is noted that the in-
fluence on the risk is not such as to change its order of magnitude.
The results after modifying the joint tensile capacity also show a significant change
in the distribution of the damage, as reported in Table 5. Failure is now concentrated in
the central column (C3) and columns C2 and C4 of the flexible edge. Most of the other
determining failure modes (6, 42, 60, 69) are related to flexural, shear and joint-panel
failure of column C6 on the first and second floor. This indicates the vulnerability of
the column, as is also seen from the test results. It might be concluded that efforts to-
wards an improved modelling, in spite of the relatively small influence on the risk es-
timate, are of critical importance in the identification of more vulnerable elements and
hence in the planning of upgrading interventions.
3.6 Conclusion
A statistical approach for seismic reliability problems was applied in the assessment of
an RC frame structure. The procedure establishes a response surface, characterised by a
statistical model of the mixed type, to represent the seismic capacity in an analytical
limit-state function. The system fragility function is then calculated by FORM analysis,
with the constructed empirical limit-state function as input.
Table 5: Modes determining collapse of the structure (modified joint strength)
Failure Modes 2 3 4 6 42 60 62 69
No. of failures 10 23 16 3 3 3 6 24
It was shown that the probabilistic procedure is general in the sense that it can be
used in conjunction with state-of-the-art mechanical models, and that the variability in
the response due to uncertainty in the input ground-motion is realistically represented.
Further, variability of the mechanical parameters is included, and the computation of
the failure probability can account for any type and number of different failure modes.
The application indicates that the method can be regarded as affordable as the num-
ber of computations can still be considered as acceptably low. The exact number of
109
analyses needed is a function of the structure under consideration and of the iterative
procedure used to arrive at failure. In the presented case study, for 90 experiments, the
total number of simulation was 432 (an approximate average of 5 iterations per ex-
periment).
Finally, the comparison made with actual test data shows the importance of repre-
sentative capacity models and accurate FE modelling. Clearly, progress is still to be
made in order to set up accurate and practical models that are able to reproduce the be-
haviour of poorly designed and detailed RC structures.
Acknowledgements
The work has been carried out under partial funding from the EU project SPEAR (Contract
NG6RD-CT-2001-00525). This paper has been presented at the 13th World Conference of
Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, 2004.
References
Box, G.E.P. & Draper, N.R. 1987. Empirical model-building and response surfaces. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Cochran, W.G. & Cox, G.M. 1957. Experimental designs (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
fib 2003. Bulletin 24: Seismic assessment and retrofit of reinforced concrete buildings. Lausan-
ne, Switzerland.
Franchin, P. & Lupoi, A. & Pinto, P.E. & Schotanus, M.I.J. 2003a. Seismic fragility of rein-
forced concrete structures using a response surface approach. Journal of Earthquake Engi-
neering 7(Special Issue 1):45-77.
Franchin, P. & Lupoi, A. & Pinto, P.E. & Schotanus, M.I.J. 2003b. Response surface for seis-
mic fragility analysis of RC structures. In A. Der Kiureghian, S. Madanat, J.M. Pestana
(eds.), Proceedings ICASP 9. Rotterdam: Millpress, pg. 41-48.
Kosmopoulos, A. & Bousias, S.N. & Fardis, M.N. 2003 . Design and pre-test assessment of 3-
storey torsionally-unbalanced RC test structure. In Proc. of fib 2003 Symposium: Concrete
Structures in Seismic Regions, Athens, Greece. Paper No. 123.
Kowalsky, M.J. & Priestley, M.J.N. 2000. Improved analytical model for shear strength of cir-
cular reinforced concrete columns in seismic regions. ACI Structural Journal 97(3): 388-
396.
Negro, P. & Mola, E. & Molina, J.F. & Magonette, G.E. 2004. Full-scale bi-directional PsD
testing of a torsionally unbalanced three-storey non-seismic RC frame. In Proc. of the 13th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada. Paper N. 968.
Panagiotakos, T.B. & Fardis, M.N. 2001. Deformations of reinforced concrete members at
yielding and ultimate. ACI Structural Journal 98(2):135-148.
Paulay, T. & Priestley, M.J.N. 1992. Seismic design of reinforced and masonry buildings. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Sabetta. F. & Pugliese, A. 1996. Estimation of response spectra and simulation of nonstationary
earthquake ground motions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 8(2): 337-352.
Searle, S.R. & Casella, G. & McCulloch, C.E. 1992. Variance components. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Veneziano, D. & Casciati, F. & Faravelli, L. 1983. Method of seismic fragility for complicated
systems. In Proc. of the 2nd Committee of Safety of Nuclear Installation (CNSI) Specialist
Meeting on Probabilistic Methods in Seismic Risk Assessment for NPP, Lawrence Liver-
more Laboratory, CA, USA.
110
Ultimate Strength and Failure Properties of Full-Scale
Walls of an Existing RC Building
Hiroto Kato 1, Koichi Kusunoki1, Tomohisa Mukai1,
Masaomi Teshigawara2,Yuusuke Asano2
1. Building Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan,

2. Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan
3. Tokyo University of Science, Noda, Japan
ABSTRACT: Static load tests were conducted on two full-scale RC walls used in a 40-
year-old reinforced concrete boxed wall building, one of the walls having an opening
and the other not. Since a reaction frame cannot be provided in field experiments, a
self-balanced loading method was adopted to achieve force equilibrium between the
test section and the upper and lower parts of it. The wall having no opening achieved
maximum strength, though slippage occurred at the joint between the wall and floor
slab. The wall with an opening also reached maximum strength due to shear failure,
and the maximum strength was only about 80% that of the wall with no opening.
Based on the current seismic design standards of Japan, it was determined that the
building under study had retained more than the required strength.
1 INTRODUCTION
Research and development related to the renewal or conversion of existing build-

ings has been actively pursued in the hope of making effective use of older buildings as
social capital. The authors of this report conducted research on renewal technique us-
ing an existing apartment complex as a case study model (Teshigawara et al. 2004). In
this study, tests were carried out on a reinforced concrete (RC) boxed wall building
constructed in the 1960s to confirm the structural performance of the old building.
In general, RC boxed wall buildings are considered to have high load-carrying ca-
pacity. While there have already been several reports on full-scale loading tests con-
ducted on boxed wall structures, all of these experiments used manufactured speci-
mens. There have been almost no reports on experiments using actual buildings
constructed as much as several decades ago. Even as they age, boxed wall structures
exhibit sufficient structural performance. Thus, it would be significant to find, through
experiments on an actual boxed RC wall structure, whether the structure retains per-
formance required for a post-renewal building. Most of the buildings constructed in the
1960s used plain bars, and the reinforcing bars in the actual structures may not have
been arranged exactly according to design. Learning the seismic performance of these
actual structures experimentally can provide extremely useful basic information for
studying the potential for spatial expansion in such buildings. Therefore, we made a
111
program to conduct loading tests on a full-scale RC building with the following two
objectives.
a) To confirm seismic performance of actual boxed RC wall structures
b) To grasp the influences of opening on RC wall structure concerning to strength and
deformation behavior
In this paper, we will describe the investigations on the test methods and the results
of the loading tests and present a comparative study on the failure mechanisms, defor-
mation properties, and load-carrying capacity of the specimens.
2 OUTLINE OF LOADING TESTS
2.1 Building Used in the Experiment

The building subjected to the loading tests was an apartment complex on the sub-
urbs of Tokyo. Constructed in 1960, this four-story residential building had an RC
boxed wall construction with a floor space of about 36.2m2 per apartment unit, a floor
height of 2.55m, six units per floor, and three stairways. Since expanding the living
space is one objective when considering the renewal of an existing building, we envi-
sioned an opening provided in a transverse wall partitioning two units. In order to use
the same conditions in the experiment, a transverse wall was selected as the specimen.
With consideration for building conditions and the like, we settled on a partitioning
wall on the third floor for conducting the loading tests (Photo 1).
The bearing walls used in the loading tests had a designed thickness of 180mm, a
height of 2.55m, and a length of 5.5m. The experimental portion was cut out from the
wall running longitudinally, leaving orthogonal walls of 1.08m (the effective length of
an orthogonal wall corresponding to six times its thickness, according to the design
guideline for RC buildings (AIJ standard 2003)) on both ends of the bearing wall so
that the structure had an I-shaped cross section. According to the design specifications,
the design strength of the concrete was 18N/mm2. The vertical and horizontal reinforc-
ing bars in the wall consisted of 9φ plain bars (SR235) arranged at intervals of
300mm in double rows (shear reinforcement ratio p h = p v = 0.2% ), and 13φ plain
bars (SR235) were arranged at both ends of the walls as bend reinforcing bars. While
an orthogonal wall also existed around center in span direction, this portion was re-
moved for the sake of convenience of loading test, so that only one wall was tested.
The experiment was conducted on two specimens, including a bearing wall in its
present condition (Wall-1 having no opening) and a specimen (Wall-2 with an open-
ing) provided with a wall opening envisioned for renewal (an exit/entrance of about
1.0x1.9m and the reduction coefficient of wall due to opening is 0.37). However, only
the opening was provided in Wall-2. No additional reinforcement was provided around
the opening. Figure 1 shows the shape of each specimen, with actual measurements for
the dimensions. A balcony projected from the south side of the wall at a length of 1.1
m.
112
(a) Overview of the building (b) Test portion

Photo 1 Test building
South Side South Side

North Side (Balcony) North Side (Balcony)
5751 1100 5748 1100

5556 5538
2295 1011 2022
Specimen
2550
Opening
2550
Specimen
1940
210 179 200 220
175
175
435
450
450
445
450
450
450
450
(a) Wall-1. (b) Wall-2.

Figure 1. Dimensions of specimens.
2.2 Study of the Loading Method
Since a bearing wall in span direction is the subject of the loading tests, it is a diffi-
cult problem how to provide a reaction frame for the loading jacks. We drew up plans
for the experiment based on the assumption of using a loading method in which the
force flow is self-balanced in the experimental section (Toyooka et al. 2000).
Figure 2 illustrates the self-balanced loading method adopted for this experiment.
Two hydraulic jacks were disposed on both surfaces of the wall like a K-shaped brace.
The top and bottom of each jack was mounted on a loading jig, and the loading jig was
fixed to the wall or slab portion of the loading target. When facing the wall, the jack on
the right applies a force P in the extending direction, and at the same time the jack on
the left applies the same force P in the retracting direction. Since the jacks are
113
mounted at an angle θ to the horizontal, the load generated in the horizontal direction
is 2P cos θ . The jacks also generate a vertical load, but this vertical component is off-
set since the directions of the forces are opposite each other. Hence, the force equilib-
rium can be achieved between the jacks and the test section; it makes the experiment to
do without an external reaction frame.
To facilitate control in the loading process, it is desirable to use four jacks having
the same specifications and to use hydraulic jacks that operate with the same pushing
and pulling pressure. Further, in order to ensure that a shear force is not generated in
the loading jig, the tops of the jacks must be mounted in such a way that the axes of
jacks are concentrated at one point.
North Side Sourth Side

Pin Loading Jig
Slab
Specimen
Hydraulic Jack
Minus Side Plus Side ƒÆ

Loading Loading
Balcony
Loading Jig
(a) Overview of loading test. (b) Jack arrangements.

Figure 2. Loading method.
(1) Force Applied to the Specimen
Figure 3 shows the relationships between forces acting on the specimen in the load-
ing method. A shear force Q applied to the specimen by one set of jacks (when jacks
are mounted on both surfaces, the shear force acting on the specimen is 2Q ) can be
calculated according to Equation 1.
Q = 2P cos θ (1)
Here, tan θ = H sin θ =

H
L2 H + (L 2 ) 2
2
θ : mounting angle of the hydraulic jack to the horizontal
The overturning moment M generated on the base of the wall due to the horizontal
force is calculated as follows.
M = QH = 2PH cos θ (2)
An axial load N generated in the side ends of the walls due to this overturning
moment M is calculated as follows.
114
M QH 2 PH cos θ PH cos θ (3)

N= = = = = P sin θ
L L L L2
(2) Force Error Due to Horizontal Deformation

In the method described above, the horizontal force applied to the specimen differs
from the Q found in Equation 1 as the specimen deforms. Since the vertical force
component also changes, the vertical force at a nodal point A is not always zero.
Therefore, we studied the effects of errors accompanying these forces. In this study,
deformation in the height direction accompanying horizontal deformation was ignored.
Since the specimen has a height of 2.74m and a length of 5.5m, the relationship be-
tween the horizontal force Q considering horizontal deformation and the horizontal
force Q0 when the jacks are initially mounted at the angle θ is shown in Figure 4a.
The force error in the horizontal direction is about 0.06% even when deformation
reaches to a drift angle of about 0.04rad.. Meanwhile, Figure 4b shows the results of
calculating the ratio of the axial force N ' at the nodal point A and the horizontal force
Q . A compressive force acts on the specimen along with horizontal deformation, but
the magnitude of this force is only about 0.5% of the horizontal force Q for a drift an-
gle of 0.01rad and about 2.0% for a drift angle of 0.04rad.. Therefore, the horizontal
and axial force errors occurring in this loading method are not so large and were de-
termined to have almost no effect on the experiment.
As shown in Figure 2, the bearing wall section directly above the area subject to the
present experiment is gripped on both side surfaces by steel loading jigs. The center
portion of the slab has been cut out to mount the top of the hydraulic jacks. Loading
jigs are also installed directly below the specimen so as to grip the floor slab. The jigs
are fixed to the bearing wall directly beneath the specimen (second floor section) with
PC steel bars in order to bear the reaction force of the jacks. The hydraulic jacks used
in this experiment have a capacity of 1MN and a stroke of ±300mm. The two jacks on
the south side are controlled with a computer, while the jacks on the north side are
driven to follow at the same pressure. The loads are applied with all four jacks operat-
ing in conjunction.
L
P P
Q
H
P P
N ƒÆ N
B C
Figure 3. Relationship between applied forces.
115
0.00 0.0
-0.5
Q/Q0-1 (%)
-0.02
N'/Q (%)
-1.0
-0.04
-1.5
-0.06 -2.0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Story Drift Angle (rad.) Story Drift Angle (rad.)
(Tensile force is plus)

(a) Force error in horizontal loading. (b) Error in axial load.
Figure 4. Force error vs. story drift angle relationship.
3 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
3.1 Material Properties

In the process of cutting out each specimen, some concrete cylinders were cored
from members near the wall and compressive strength tests were carried out on them.
The concrete compressive strength exceeded the design strength, with 19.1N/mm2 for
Wall-1 and 20.5N/mm2 for Wall-2.
The 9φ rebar acquired from a dismantled portion of the building had yield strength
of 370.5N/mm2 and tensile strength of 474.8N/mm2, high values for SR235 (SR24).
The sampled rebar showed almost no rust and were found to have no corrosion,
equivalent to Corrosion Grade-1 defined in Recommendation for Practice of Survey,
Diagnosis and Repair for Deterioration of Reinforced Concrete Structures (AIJ 1997).
These values of material strength are used in calculating wall strength described below.
Material tests could not be performed on the 13φ plain bars used as reinforcement
against bending in the walls. Therefore, the value of 294N/mm2 used in seismic evalua-
tions for existing structures (The Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association 2001)
was employed in the calculations.
3.2 Restoring Force Characteristics and Failure Mechanisms
In the tests, load control was used initially and then switched to deformation control
in which the cyclic loadings were gradually increased until the specimen reached a
state of ultimate destruction. Figure 5 shows the relationship between shear force and
deformation obtained in the experiment, while Figure 6 shows the final crack patterns.
The story drift angle was calculated by dividing the displacement at the top of the
specimen by the height to the displacement transducers (2.54m for Wall-1 and 2.50m
for Wall-2).
116
The maximum strength of Wall-1 is –1.14MN at the story drift angle, R=-
0.0023rad.. The wall strength dropped greatly during minus side loading at
R=0.005rad.. When applying the load a second time, the out-of-plane deformation of
the specimen increased, then the experiment was halted. Initial shear cracks appeared
in Wall-1 around R=0.00063rad.. The cracks progressed and increased in number as
loading was repeated. On the other hand, slippage at the joint between the bottom of
wall and slab appeared at an early stage and progressed across the entire length of the
wall as the load increased. Slippage at the bottom of the wall also increased as defor-
mation increased, and the ultimate strength of the wall was determined at the point of
slip destruction.
-3 -3
Story Drift Angle, R (x10 rad.) Story Drift Angle, R (x10 rad.)
-16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 -16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12
2.0 Qwsu 2.0
Test Strength Test Strength
Qwmu Qwmu
1.5 Qmax= 1.128MN 1.5 Qmax= 0.842MN
(R= 1/205rad.) (R=1/239rad.) Qwsu
1.0 Qmin=-1.136MN 1.0 Qmin=-0.943MN
Shear Force (MN)
(R=-1/440rad.) Shear Force (MN) (R=-1/70rad.)

0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
-0.5 -0.5
-1.0 Cal. Strength -1.0

Cal. Strength
Qwmu= 1.658MN Qwsu Qwmu= 1.529MN
-1.5 Qwmu Qwsu= 1.890MN -1.5
Qwmu Qwsu= 1.198MN
Qwsu
-2.0 -2.0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Story Drift (mm) Story Drift (mm)

Figure 5. Shear force vs. story drift relationship.
Initial Cracks
Plus Loading
North Side South Side North Side
Minus Loading South Side
(Balcony)
(Balcony)
a
f d
c

Figure 6. Final crack patterns of specimens.
The maximum strength of Wall-2 was 0.84MN at R=0.04rad. and 0.94MN at R=-
0.014rad.. Large cracks appeared in the wall when the story drift angle R exceeded
0.014rad., and the experiment was stopped. Wall-2 also showed cracks in the base of
the wall, but not as striking as those in Wall-1. Slip deformation was also not remark-
able. While specimens cannot easily be compared since there ultimate destruction
mechanisms differed, the ultimate strength of Wall-2 appears to be about 83% that of
Wall-1. Although the cracks that appeared to the north and south sides of the opening
117
in Wall-2 during a plus load were fairly equal, cracking on the south side was consid-
erably more striking during a minus load. The widths of cracks were measured at
points a–f shown in Figure 6. A small width of 0.2–1mm was measured for cracks at
points a and b for Wall-1 after unloading, when the load was 0kN (R=0.005rad.). The
cracks at points c and d near the opening in Wall-2 were greater than those of other
cracks and likely due to the fact that the opening was not reinforced. The cracks at
point e reached widths of 1–2mm at a load of 0kN (R=0.01rad.), while very large
cracks at point f exceeded a width of 2mm.
The dashed and dotted lines in Figure 5 indicate calculated values of the shear
strength Q wmu at the ultimate bending strength M wu and the ultimate shear strength
Q wsu of the bearing wall (BCJ 2001) described in section 4.4. These calculations use
the results of the material tests described in section 3.1 and considered the actual axial
load of the specimens. The ultimate shear strength Q wsu found from these calculations
is greater than the measured value for both specimens in the experiment, being 1.66
times the experimental value for Wall-1 and 1.27 times that for Wall-2, and cannot be
used to reasonably evaluate the strength of the specimens. We can hypothesize that the
destruction mechanism serving as the premise of the calculations was incorrect. For
example, Wall-1 achieved its maximum strength due to slippage at the bottom of the
wall and that the behavior of Wall-2 on both sides of the opening was not equivalent.
The results may also have been influenced by the balcony provided only on one side of
the wall, problems in anchoring the vertical bars, or the influence of the bond property
of plain bars. This will be investigated in detail in section 4.4.
4 DISCUSSIONS OF THE TEST RESULTS
4.1 Investigating Ultimate Strength of the Walls

Table 1 shows the shear strength Qwu at the ultimate bending strength M wu and
ultimate shear strength Q wsu of the bearing wall calculated according to Equations 4,
5 (BCJ 2001) using the material properties shown in section 3.1. The actual axial load
of the specimens is used in this calculation. The bending strength of Wall-2 is calcu-
lated by subtracting the number of vertical reinforcing bars from the opening.
Ultimate bending moment, M wu (kNm)
( )
M wu = at ⋅ σ y + 0.5aw ⋅ σ wy + 0.5 N ⋅ A w (4)
at : Total cross section of rebar in columns on tension side

σ y : Yield strength of rebar in columns on tension side
a w : Cross section of vertical rebar in bearing wall, including the cross section
of rebar in the middle column of the bearing wall when present
σ wy : Yield strength in vertical bars of bearing wall
118
l w : Distance between centers of columns on both sides when bearing wall has
an I-shaped cross section or 0.9D when bearing wall has a rectangular
cross section
D : Total length of bearing wall
N : Axial load of bearing wall
Ultimate shear strength, Q wsu (kN)
⎧⎪ 0 .053 p te 0.23 (Fc + 18 ) ⎫⎪

Q wsu = ⎨ + 0 .85 σ wh ⋅ p wh + 0 .1σ 0 ⎬t e ⋅ j (5)
⎪⎩ (M / Q ⋅ D ) + 0 .12 ⎪⎭
t e : Width when replacing an I-shaped cross section with an equivalent rectan-

gular cross section having a similar length and cross section area, provided
t e is no greater than 1.5 times the wall thickness t
D : Total length of bearing wall
J : Distance from the centroid of compression to the centroid of tensile steel
7
and may be assumed to be d
8
pte : Equivalent tensile bar ratio (%); equal to 100at t e ⋅ d
at : Total cross section of rebar in columns on tensile side with an I-shaped
cross section, or cross section of bending rebar on ends when using a rec-
tangular cross section
d : D − Dc / 2 (because Dc is for column on compressive side) when using
an I-shaped cross section, or 0.95D when using a rectangular cross section
pwh : Horizontal shear rebar ratio when considering t e as the thickness
σ wh : Yield strength of the horizontal shear rebar
σ 0 : Average axial stress on overall cross section
From Table 1, we can see that the calculated values for the ultimate bending and
shear strength of the bearing wall far exceeded the measured strengths. Figures in pa-
rentheses are the result of dividing calculated values by tested values. From the obser-
vations in the loading test slippage at wall bottom was seen to be predominant in Wall-
1. Since it is likely that slip destruction in the joint between the wall and floor slab was
the ultimate failure mechanism, we can hypothesize that the destruction mechanism
based on Equations 4,5 is different from the actual mechanism. The destruction prop-
erty of Wall-2 was controlled by the shear deformation, but the maximum strength dif-
fered about 10% for plus side loads and minus side loads. Since the wallboards north
and south of the opening did not behave uniformly, it is possible that deformation was
different in these wallboards at the point that the ultimate shear destruction was
reached. We intend to continue studying evaluations of strength that account for the
deformation states in Wall-2.
119
For studying the ultimate strength of Wall-1 below, we have applied strength Equa-
tions 6,7 for joint portions of pre-cast box-walled structures to calculate the slip
strength of an RC boxed wall construction (AIJ 1986, AIJ 2002). Equation 8 (AIJ
1986) was also used to calculate the strength of pre-cast wallboards in an RC structure
proposed by ACI Code 318-77, and the results are given in Table 1 for comparison.
Ultimate shear strength of horizontal connection for pre-cast RC wall, Q DH (kN)
(
Q DH = 0.7 σ y ∑ a h + N h ) (6)
σ y : Yield strength of vertical joint bars

∑ a h = a hc + a ht : Sum of effective cross section for joint reinforcing bars in
horizontal joint (including tension bars)
N h : Axial load in bearing wall (with positive compression)
Ultimate shear strength of horizontal connection for pre-cast RC wall, V Hj (kN)
{( ) }
V Hj = µ a wσ wy + N L + C ⋅ ξ (7)
µ : Frictional coefficient (value is depended on joint detail and surface condi-

tion)
a w : Sum of effective cross section for vertical reinforcing bars in horizontal joint
σ wy : Yield strength of vertical reinforcing bar
N L : Axial load acting on the joint
C : Shear strength of shear keys
ξ : Amplitude factor for considering the shear strength of side columns
Ultimate shear strength of horizontal connection for pre-cast RC wall, Vn (kN) by

ACI Code 318-77
V n = Avf f y µ (8)
Avf : Cross section of shear reinforcing bars

f y : Yield strength of shear reinforcing bars
µ : Frictional coefficient (set to 0.6)
The calculated results according to Equations 6-8 indicate that the tested strength of
Wall-1 is in the safe range. It may be necessary to consider evaluating slip strength in a
structure of this type. However, since almost no previous reports of studies conducted
at laboratories have included casing of observing slip destruction in bearing walls of a
cast-in-place building, this may require further study to determine whether the cause of
120
this discrepancy is different to differences between the actual building and the speci-
mens, or a unique property of the building studied in this experiment.
Table 1. Comparison of ultimate strength.

Ultimate Strength of Each Specimen (MN)
Wall-1 (Cal./Test) Wall-2 (Cal./Test)
Experimental Values 1.14 (----) 0.94 (----)
Qwmu (Equation 4) 1.66 (1.46) 1.53 (1.63)

Calculated Values
Qwsu (Equation 5) 1.89 (1.66) 1.20 (1.28)
QDH (Equation 6) 1.06 (0.93) ---- (----)
VHj (Equation 7) 1.02 (0.89) ---- (----)
Vn (Equation 8) 0.87 (0.76) ---- (----)
4.2 Comparison of Load Carrying Capacity and Required Strength by the Japanese
Seismic Design Standard
The building used for this experiment was designed according to the seismic stan-
dard around 1960. When calculating the seismic design shear force ( C0 =1.0) of a
three-story structure based on the current Building Standard Law (BCJ 2001), the re-
quired strength for one wall, as was the target of our experiment, would be 0.85MN.
The maximum strengths obtained from the experiment were 1.14MN for Wall-1 and
0.94MN for Wall-2, proportionate to 1.3 and 1.1 times the required strength. Hence,
the building subjected to this experiment was shown to possess more than the required
strength based on the current code.
5 CONCLUDING REMARKS
This report covered loading tests conducted on a full-scale RC wall of an actual

apartment complex constructed more than 40 years ago. Although the experiment was
conducted outdoors, we employed a method of applying a load with hydraulic jacks,
while balancing the reaction force of the jacks in the testing section, enabling us to
conduct a full-scale experiment without providing an external reaction wall. The tech-
nique adopted in this experiment was found to be effective for structural tests, as stable
loading control was possible.
Although the maximum strength of the specimens obtained in this experiment was
lower than value calculated according to strength formulas ordinarily used in design-
ing, it is thought that this difference was due to an incorrect destruction mechanism.
121
Based on calculations of the slip strength in the bearing wall, the test results were
deemed to be within a safe range when considering the destruction property observed
in the tests. Further, despite the building being designed according to old building
codes on 1960, the building was confirmed to possess more than the required strength
even for the current standards.
6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The experimental research described in this paper was implemented as part of re-
search conducted by the Research Committee on Expansion Technique for Indoor
Spaces of Old Buildings Suitable for the Next Generation (Chairman: Prof. Masaomi
Teshigawara, Nagoya University) organized by the Japan Association for Building Re-
search Promotion. We received valuable assistance on the loading method used for this
experiment from Dr. Keiji Kitajima of Asunaro-Aoki Construction Co. Ltd. In the ex-
periments, we received great contributions from numerous people, including Messrs.
Shigeo Kotani, Hiroki Akiyama from the Urban Renaissance Agency.
References
Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) 1986: Guide for Design and Prefabrication of Precast
Reinforced Concrete Structures (in Japanese)
Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) 1997: Recommendation for Practice of Survey, Diag-
nosis and Repair for Deterioration of Reinforced Concrete Structures (in Japanese)
Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) 2002: Evaluation Method and Design of Shear
Strength for Multistory Precast Reinforced Concrete Structural Wall (in Japanese)
Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) 2003: AIJ Standards for Structural Design of Rein-
forced Concrete Boxed Wall-Buildings (in Japanese)
Building Center of Japan (BCJ) 2001: Guideline for Technical Standard Related to Building
Structure (2001) (in Japanese)
Hisahiro Hiraishi et al. 1983: An Evaluation Method for Shear and Flexural Deformation of
Shear Walls, Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering, Architectural Institute of Ja-
pan, No.333, pp.55-62 (in Japanese)
Teshigawara Masaomi, Fukuyama Hiroshi, Kato Hiroto, Kusunoki Koichi, Takahashi Yuji,
Watanabe Kazuhiro and Akiyama Hiroki 2004: The Feasibility Study Report on The Long-
lived Renewal and Renovation Technique of Existing Buildings, Building Research Data
No.99, Building Research Institute (in Japanese)
The Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association 2001: Standard for Seismic Evaluation
of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings (2001) (in Japanese)
Toyooka Shigeto, Kitajima Keiji, et al. 2000: Seismic Performance of Existing School
Building in Prefecture A, Part 22. Performance Test of Anchor Bearing for Exterior Brace Ab-
sorbing Seismic Energy, Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting Architectural In-
stitute of Japan, Structure-IV (in Japanese)
122
Shake table tests of a 3-storey irregular RC structure
designed for gravity loads
Ema Coelho, A. Campos Costa, P. Candeias, M.J. Falcão Silva, L. Mendes
LNEC, Lisbon, Portugal
ABSTRACT: This paper summarises an experimental program on a reduced scale

(1:2,5) specimen of a 3-storey torsionally unbalanced RC building structure, designed
for gravity loads, carried out in LNEC seismic testing installation, within the European
project SPEAR. The results of the shake table tests are presented, as well the results of
the preliminary pre-test assessment. Some remarks are made regarding the
confrontation of the shake table tests with the pseudo-dynamic tests performed in the
ELSA Laboratory in Ispra on a full-scale specimen of the same structure, also carried
out in the framework of project SPEAR.
1 INTRODUCTION
The present paper is focused on the experimental study, performed in the LNEC 3D
shake table, of a 3-storey torsionally unbalanced RC building structure, representative
of the older Mediterranean region constructions, designed without earthquake
resistance.
The test prototype was designed by the Patras University for gravity loads only using
the concrete design code applied in Greece between 1954 and 1995 and using materials
similar to the ones used in Greece in early 70’s. The test specimen was obtained by
reducing the prototype of a scale factor of 1:2.5.
The main objective of the experimental study was the evaluation of the effects of the
main deficiencies of the structural behaviour associated with the design in accordance
with ancient Greek design codes, namely: use of smooth reinforcing bars, existence of
slender columns with large spaced stirrups, inclined reinforcement in beams, column
lap splices in potential plastic hinges zones, lack of shear reinforcement in beam-
column joints, inadequate anchorage of stirrups and hoops, and irregular plan layout.
The results of the numerical simulations carried out for pre-test assessment are
summarised, and the characteristics of the LNEC specimen are described, with respect
to the geometry of the model, the properties of the materials and the similitude issues.
A description of the test set-up and of the experimental program is made, focusing on
the main issues related to instrumentation, response measuring, and testing procedure.
Finally the main experimental results obtained are presented, and the evolution of the
structural damage observed is illustrated.
123
2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SPECIMEN
2.1 Similitude conditions
Comparing to other testing techniques, shake table methodology enables real dynamic
tests, which are most suitable for reproducing the seismic response of structures.
However, there are a number of constraints that have to be met, and these type of tests
are usually made using reduced scale specimens of the reference prototypes and
applying suitable similitude laws.
For the LNEC shake table, the most important aspects that have to be taken in
consideration are: 1) Dimensions of the shake table platform (4.60x5.60m2), 2) Payload
capacity of the shake table (40 tons) and 3) Maximum capacity of the actuators to
produce accurate motions (depending on the dynamic characteristics of the specimen).
Cauchy and the Froude similitude laws are in this case simultaneously adopted, as
generally considered as appropriate for dynamic tests [1]. Taking in consideration the
dimensions and capacity of the platform, a geometric scale of 1:2.5 was chosen (λ =
2.5). With this scale factor it is possible to use the same materials in the scaled
specimen (reinforced concrete with some modifications) and the traditional techniques
of in situ concreting. The 40 tons overall payload capacity of the table is also fulfilled.
As a consequence of using reinforced concrete in the scaled model, the modulus of
elasticity is not scaled (e = 1). On the other hand, it is feasible and convenient not to
scale the accelerations imposed to the model (a = 1).
From the above similitude conditions, it is possible to express all the scale factors
between the relevant parameters of the phenomena (Table 1).
Table 1 - Scale factors between the prototype and the model, adapted from Carvalho (1998).
Parameter Scale Factor Parameter Scale Factor
Length LP/LM = λ Acceleration 1
Modulus of elasticity EP/EM = e = 1 Force λ2
Specific mass ρP/ρM = ρ = λ−1 Stress 1
Mass λ2 Strain 1
Displacement λ Time λ1/2
Velocity λ1/2 Frequency λ−1/2
The major consequences of the use of these similitude laws are the time “compression”
of the input excitation imposed to the model (t = λ 1/2 = 1.581), and the increase of the
mass of the model relative to the reference prototype (ρ = λ -1 = 0.4). This last relation
has an important consequence in the tests, since the same materials are used (initial
criteria), thus requiring the application of additional masses on the scaled model.
2.2 Geometry, detailing and additional weight
The specimen tested in the experimental programme is obtained from the prototype
structure designed by Fardis (2002) scaled from 1:2.5. The scaled model (Figures 1 and
124
2) has a height between floors of 1,2m, and beams height of 0,20m. The cross section
dimensions of column P6 are 300x100mm, while for the remaining columns (P1-P5
and P7-P9) are 100x100m. In the scaled model, and similarly to the prototype, stairs
and masonry walls were omitted.
Figure 1 – General layout of the SPEAR specimen - plan and height configuration.
The specimen was built in a stiff pre-existing slab, to simulate a fixed connection to
foundation. Special care has been considered in the connection between the foundation
slab and the columns of the first floor.
To satisfy similitude conditions, the slab is 60mm thick with a typical layout of
reinforcement of 3mm bars, spaced 80mm. The longitudinal reinforcement of the
columns is constituted by 6mm smooth bars, confined by around 3mm smooth hoop
bars, with 90º overlapping hooks. The hoops are non-existent inside the joints. The
typical reinforcement in beams is constituted by 6mm bars in the upper face, two
anchored in the joint region with 180º hooks and the remaining bent up along the
column direction. Transverse reinforcement is composed by 3mm stirrups with 90º
overlapping hooks.
The additional weight applied to the specimen corresponds to the permanent and live
loads, modified and increased in order to comply with the similitude conditions above
referred. The positioning of the additional masses has been defined on the basis of the
following criteria: i) Available set of industrial masses (600 kgf or 1200 kgf); ii)
Position of the columns and the beams on the slabs; iii) Equivalent mass inertia (for
horizontal accelerations and rotation about the vertical axis) of the complete system
(scaled specimen + additional masses) to reference prototype; and iv) Uniform axial
force in the columns (which influences the resistance). The position of the additional
masses is presented in Figure 3.
125
Figure 2 – The SPEAR model tested at LNEC (West view).
Figure 3 – Position of the additional masses.

2.3 Materials
The materials used in the construction of the scaled specimen are a C25/30 concrete
with a maximum dimension of aggregates of approximately 5-6mm and slumping class
S4, and FeB32K smooth steel. During each concreting phase, slumping tests were
made and concrete specimens were prepared for compression tests.
126
These materials have been chosen in agreement with the relevant similitude conditions.
Besides that, and not less important, the chosen materials have been conditioned in
order to allow the appropriate development of all the construction phases. Taking into
account the small dimensions of the structural elements in the scaled specimen and the
high concentration of reinforcement bars in some joints, a “micro-concrete” of thin
gravel has been used, with a maximum dimension of the aggregates compatible with
the elements dimensions. To achieve more workability during the pouring phase, a
fluid concrete has been considered. Reinforcement bars characteristics have been
defined on the basis of results of tests performed on samples of bars taken from the
JRC full scale model.
One of the major difficulties has been to assure equivalence of steel properties due to
scaling, namely in what regards the diameter of bars and the stress-strain relationships
of actual steel. The experimental results obtained for the different diameters used in the
prototype (8, 12 and 20mm) and in the specimen (3, 6 and 9mm) are illustrated in
Figure 4.
s [MP a] s [MPa] s [MPa]
600 600 800
700 d=8mm
500 500
d=3 mm
600
400 400
500
d=2 0m m
300 300 400
d=9 mm d=12mm
d=5mm 300
200 200
d=6mm
200
100 100
S tra i n Strain 100 Strain
[%] [%] [%]
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Figure 4 - Experimental stress-strain curves for reinforcement steel (Prototype: FeB32k;

φ=8, 12, 20 mm; Model: FeB32k; φ=3, 5.5, 9 mm)
For the larger diameters (5mm to 10mm), that are used in the beams and in the
columns, it was possible to find bars with those characteristics. These bars were
supplied by the Portuguese national steel mill. For the smaller diameter (3mm), which
is used in the slabs and in the stirrups, the solution adopted used bars for welded
meshes. These bars are mechanical treated, so they don’t have the typical yield phase
platform of the hot rolled steel, and the ultimate strain is also much smaller. These bars
were supplied by an welded wire mesh company. Tests were made to the specimens
used in the LNEC scale model and those used in the ISPRA-JRC full scale model. The
results are presented in Table 5 and 6.
Table 5 - Average results of the tensile tests on the specimens used in the ISPRA-JRC full scale
model
Specimen Diameter Area Yield strength Ultimate stress Ultimate strain
2
[mm] [mm ] [kN] [MPa] [%]
φ8 mm 7.95 49.77 29.3 583 15.3
φ12 mm 11.98 113.19 65.7 581 17.0
φ20 mm 20.17 319.31 184.1 586 19.3
Table 6 - Average results of the tensile tests on the specimens used in the LNEC scale model
127
Specimen Diameter Area Yield strength Ultimate stress Ultimate strain
[mm] [mm2] [kN] [MPa] [%]
φ3 mm 2.99 6.66 4.6* 722 1.4
φ5.5 mm 5.53 24.00 10.3 432 20.2
φ6 mm 5.97 28.00 12.6 446 17.1
φ9 mm 8.98 63.18 28.2 443 19.5
* For these bars the yield strength was determined using the intersection between the curve of the tests
and an imaginary curve with the elastic slope and an initial strain of 0.2%.
3 PRELIMINARY PRE-TEST ASSESSMENT
In parallel with the construction of the model a preliminary pre-test assessment was
performed. For that purpose, both the prototype, Massena (2004), and LNEC’s
physical model, Coelho et al. (2005), were developed. For both models a modal
analysis and a global strength push-over analysis were carried out and estimates of
dynamic non-linear response were also performed. Comparisons of results were made
in order to analyse the representativeness of the specimen.
3.1 Software for analytical analysis
The software used to perform the above mentioned analysis was SeismoStruct; a
computer program developed in the University of Pavia, Antoniu & Pinho (2003). In
that software accurate concrete and steel material models are available, together with a
large library of elements that can be used with a wide choice of steel, concrete and
composite section configuration. The applied loading cases include constant or variable
forces, displacements and accelerations. For more details SeismoStruct can be freely
assessed in www.seismosoft.com.
3.2 Analytical modelling of the structural elements
Both models were built with beam elements. The thickness of cover concrete is
assumed to be 25mm and 6mm for all members, for the prototype and the model
respectively. Slabs were omitted being their participation to the beam stiffness and
strength reflected by effective width of T-section of beams. In what concerns the
definition of the effective flange width it was used the Eurocode 8 for the prototype
and the Portuguese regulation (REBAP) – Artº 88º for the scaled specimen. As the
beams adjacent to column P6 are not aligned, this beam-column connection was
modelled considering a rigid member connecting the two beams.
A convenient refined meshing of small beam elements was used for both column and
beams elements in order to better identify the effects (appearance of plastic hinges) on
the structure.
128
3.3 Numerical results
3.3.1 Modal analysis results
Table 7 – Natural frequencies and mode types (prototype and scaled model).
PROTOTYPE SCALED MODEL
Theoretical scaled Calculated Freq ratio
Mode T [s] f [Hz] Mode type T [s] f [Hz] Mode type T [s] f [Hz] Mode type Calc/Theor
1st 0.62 1.60 T,R 0.39 2.53 T,R 0.39 2.56 T,R 1.01
2nd 0.53 1.89 R,L 0.33 2.99 R,L 0.33 3 R,L 1
3rd 0.45 2.24 L,R 0.28 3.54 L,R 0.28 3.57 L,R 1
Table 7 above and Figure 6 below summarize the main results obtained in modal
analysis both for prototype and scaled model, showing that:
1st Mode (2,56Hz) 2nd Mode (3Hz) 3rd Mode (3,57Hz)

Figure 6 – Three first mode shapes of both analytical models (plan view)
1. Frequencies and mode shapes, for the both modal analysis, are in full agreement
meaning that, the scaling factors of linear elastic properties namely, geometric member
properties, linear elastic stiffness of materials and mass distribution, respected the
Cauchy-Froude similitude law depicted in Table 1 above;
2. The values of the three first natural frequencies are very close and the associated
mode shapes are torsionally coupled with the translation components. Differences in
mode shapes are directly connected with the location of each mode rotation centres.
Occurrence of torsion is due to the plan irregularity resulting from the higher stiffness
of the column P6 and the balcony in one of the sides of model.
129
3. Those three modes of vibration mobilize in the x and y direction respectively 90%
and 85% of the structure’s mass. From calculations it was also concluded that the first
mode is the one that mobilizes more mass in the transverse direction (around 62%) and
that the third is the one that mobilizes more mass in the longitudinal direction (about
43%). The second mode, with a rotation centre closer to the floor mass centre can be
considered a more pure torsional mode.
3.3.2 Static pushover analysis
In order to estimate the lateral force capacity and other important characteristics, such
as peak base shears and a possible weak direction, the prototype and the scaled
specimen structures were submitted to a non-linear static push-over analysis. In both
cases the capacity curves were defined by the relation between the maximum shear
force and top displacement of the 3rd floor centre of mass.
For that purpose the two 3D frame models were used. Nevertheless the non-linear
static push-over analysis of asymmetric structures must be interpreted carefully
because there seems to be no pre-defined rules to cope with torsional behaviour of this
type of structures. To overcome this fact was used a simplified approach based on the
parallel superposition of 2D frames push-over curves in both direction as suggested by
Elnashai & Seong-Hoon (2003) and Massena (2004).
75
LONGITUDINAL
Base shear [kN]
50
25 TRANSVERSE
0
-75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75
Displacement [mm]
Figure 7 – Capacity curves for the transverse and longitudinal directions (scaled model)
Figure 7 shows push-over curves, for transverse and longitudinal direction and for
positive and negative directions. Tables 8 and 9 summarize the results in terms of
maximum base shear and top displacement for the prototype and the scaled model,
respectively. Using the same procedure applied in the modal analysis described above,
results obtained for the scaled model can be compared with the corresponding values
derived from scaling down the prototype results presented by Massena (2004).
Table 8 – Maximum base shear and top displacement for the prototype, adapted from Massena
(2004)
PROTOTYPE
Dir
Base Shear (BS) [kN] D [mm] Drift [%]
T 264 64 1.1
L 391 84.4 1.3
130
Table 9 – Maximum base shear and top displacement for the scaled model
1:2.5 SCALED MODEL
Dir Theoretical (scaled) Calculated Ratio Calc/Theor
BS[kN] D[mm] Drift[%] BS[kN] D[mm] Drift[%] BS[kN] D[mm] Drift[%]
T 42.3 25.6 1.1 45.2 25 1.04 1.07 0.98 0.95
L 62.6 33.8 1.3 66.4 34.4 1.25 1.06 1.02 0.96
From the observation of results presented above, it can be stated that:

1. A quite good agreement between capacity curves obtained for both analytical
models can be observed. This means that, scaling factors for the post elastic phases of
materials properties and the composite behaviour of the RC moment-curvature
relationships, associated to all member sections, also respected the Cauchy-Froude
similitude law;
2. The difference in values of maximum load capacities obtained for the transverse
(45.2kN) and longitudinal direction (66.4kN) is related with column P6 which has
higher cross section height in the longitudinal direction as already mentioned.
3. Differences observed in capacities in the longitudinal direction for positive
(56.9kN) and negative direction (66.4kN) are probably related to the asymmetric
disposals of longitudinal reinforced steel bars in beams V9–V10 and V7-V8. On
contrary, there exists a symmetrical disposal of reinforcement bars in the beams
oriented in the transverse direction which induces a more symmetrical behaviour.
4 INSTRUMENTATION OF THE MODEL
The scaled model instrumentation was carried out by LNEC team based on an
instrumentation plan that took into account the hypothesis of rigid body diaphragm
behaviour of floor slabs. Under that hypothesis the measurement of three non parallel
motions of vibration in two different points of each floor plan is sufficient to
characterize the movement of any point of the three floors. Vibration motions were
obtained either in displacements and accelerations.
2nd Floor 3rd Floor

1st Floor
Figure 8 – Absolute displacements measurement points using infra-red optical target led
transducers.
131
Figure 9 – Placement of the accelerometers from 1st floor to 3rd floor.
Following that principle it were measured absolute displacements using 2D infrared
optical transducer at all levels: in the base it was placed only one transducer (no
rotations at the basement) and in levels 1, 2 and 3 two transducers in two points,
opposite to the floor centre of mass were used (Figure 8). Concerning accelerations
time series they were registered at all levels using 3D PCB accelerometers in four
distinct points (Figure 9).
4.1 Input signal
The input signal consisted of semi-artificial series obtained by the modification of the
North-South (NS) and West-East (WE) components of Herceg Novi record of 1979
Montenegro earthquake, in order to be in conformity with Eurocode 8 (2003) elastic
response spectrum. The two components were applied simultaneously to the scaled
model in the two orthogonal directions (Transverse and longitudinal). The time was
scaled (λ1/2) and the acceleration not scaled in accordance with the adopted similitude
law (Cauchy-Froude).
The signals injected in the shaking table resulted from a previous adaptation of the
proposed signal for the total mass of the scaled model. The differences between the
original signal and the signal obtained after the adaptation can be observed in figure
10, which show a quite good agreement with almost imperceptible error.
Acel [mms-2]
Acel [mms-2]
0.1 0.1
Acel_NS_%g_target Acel_WE_%g_target
0.075 Acel_NS_%g_original 0.075 Acel_WE_%g_original
0.05 0.05
0.025 0.025
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-0.025 -0.025
Time [s] Time [s]
-0.05 -0.05
-0.075 -0.075
-0.1 -0.1
Figure 10 –Target and original accelerograms for NS (left) and WE (right).
132
5 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The shaking table tests were performed in two distinct phases. The first took place in
November 2003 and the second in January 2004. The program included 8 tests with
increasing peak accelerations:
Table 15 – Sequence of tests in the experimental program
Test Max accel [g] Test Max accel [g]
2nd phase
1st phase
1 0,1 5 0,2
2 0,2 6 0,6
3 0,3 7 0,8
4 0,4 8 1,0
Testing procedure is in general carried out by performing a dynamic experimental
input-output characterization test. In that test a long duration low intensity a random
noise is imposed in the model foundation and measurements of response accelerations
are registered. A system identification analysis is performed with those signals and
frequencies and mode shapes of the initial and subsequent damaged structure is
assessed. So far these results are only presented in the LNEC final report.
6 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS ANALYSIS
6.1 Observed experimental response time histories

From the registered time histories a pre-processing procedure was implemented to
compute relative displacements and absolute accelerations time series, referred to the
centre of mass of the three floors, for the transverse and longitudinal directions and for
the rotation. Figures 11, 12 and 13 present examples of such time series, for the initial
(0.1g) and for the final (1g) testing stages. In figure 14 illustrates the evolution of the
dominant experimental frequencies obtained by the FFT analysis of the relative
displacements time histories. Table 16 summarises the peak response values in terms
of relative top displacements and base shear force and Figure 15 shows the peak
deformations along the height of the structure for the transverse (negative values) and
longitudinal (positive values) directions. Figure 16 presents the top relative
displacements vs base-shear relations, for the transverse and longitudinal directions.
Internal global forces were estimated only on the basis of inertia forces (damping
forces were neglected), by means of acceleration time histories and the mass of each
floor.
From the observation of those figures and other results presented in Coelho et al.
(2005) it can be stated that:
1. In the transverse direction from test 1 to test 8 the maximum top displacements
increased almost five times (from approximately 15mm to 35mm). On the other hand
in the longitudinal direction was observed a larger difference, more than one order of
magnitude, between the values of those two tests; for the first test the maximum top
133
displacement corresponds to approximately 7mm, while for the final test the same
displacement achieved approximately 90mm (see Figures 11 and 12);
2. A similar behaviour was obtained for translational directions for input ground
motion intensities up to 0.4g (test 1 to 4 in 1st phase). For those tests the structure
displayed in the transverse and longitudinal directions a pattern of displacement
increasing from bottom to top, although in the, transverse direction, values of relative
displacement where always larger. This is probably related to the substantially lower
frequency in transverse direction (0.88Hz) compared to the longitudinal one (1.47Hz)
(see Figures 14, 16 and table 16);
3. On the contrary, a quite different pattern of displacements along the height of the
physical model was observed for translational directions for input ground motion
intensities greater than 0.4g (test 6 to 8 in 2nd phase). A concentration of drift occurred
in the first storey in the transverse direction and values of relative displacements
decreased in the upper floor. In the longitudinal direction a cantilever flexural
behaviour continued to occur up to the final test. The frequency content of motions in
longitudinal direction decreased substantially from an initial value of (1.47Hz) to a
final value of (0.83Hz) which partially justifies an increase of the maximum amplitude
of relative displacements (see Figures 14, 16 and table 16);
20 100
15 1st_floor 1.0g 1st_floor
0.1g 2nd_floor
75
10 50 2nd_floor
Displacement [mm]
Displacement [mm]
3rd_floor 3rd_floor
5 25
0 0
-5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time [s] Time [s]
-10 -50
-15 -75
-20 -100
Figure 11 – Floor relative displacement in transverse direction for initial and final tests.
4. Maximum rotations were observed on the third floor with values reaching 2.2·10-
3
rad and 20·10-3rad for the 1st and the 8th tests respectively corresponding to an
amplification factor of about 10. The pattern of rotations along the height of the
structure showed a similar behaviour to the observed for longitudinal displacements.
This indicates that coupling between the longitudinal and rotational motions was
preserved from the initial to the final tests which seems to be confirmed by the close
values of dominant frequencies of rotational motions to the corresponding frequencies
along the longitudinal direction for all tests (Figures 13 and 14);
20 100
75 1st_floor
15 1st_floor 1.0g
0.1g 2nd_floor
Displacement [mm]
10 2nd_floor 50
Displacement [mm]
3rd_floor
5 3rd_floor 25
0 0 1.0
-5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-10 Time [s] -50 Time [s]
-15 -75
-20 -100
Figure 12 - Floor relative displacement in longitudinal direction for initial and final tests.
134
2.5 25
1st_floor 20
2
0.1g 1.0g 1st_floor
1.5 2nd_floor 15 2nd_floor
Rotation [milirad]
Rotation [milirad]
1 3rd_floor 10
3rd_floor
0.5 5
0 0
-0.5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-1 Time [s] -10 Time [s]
-1.5 -15
-2 -20
-2.5 -25
Figure 13 - Floor rotations for initial and final tests.

Freq [Hz]
1.6
st nd
1.4 1 Phase Tests 2 Phase Tests
Transverse
1.2 Longitudinal
1 Rotation
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure 14 – Evolution of the experimental frequencies during the tests.

5. The table and figure below give an idea that the structure, in the transverse
direction, performed in a considerable different way from 0.4g to 0.6g input maximum
accelerations. This changing of behaviour corresponds to the development of soft-
storey mechanism in the transverse direction with hinges located at the bottom and top
of the columns of the 1st floor.
6. The hysteretic cycles expressed in terms of base shear and top displacement for the
initial and final tests shows different initial stiffness in the transverse and longitudinal
directions, being the latter slightly higher than the former as it was already pointed out.
Furthermore, the loops in Figure 16 on the right indicate that, in contrary to what
happens in the 1st test, the demands in the 8th test are higher in the longitudinal
direction. This does not reflect the damage concentration on the first floor that was
already mentioned in point 3 above.
rd
3
Table 16 – Maximum response: Base
vs top
nd Accel Top disp. Base Shear

2
[mm] [kN]
Trans Long Trans Long
0.1g 14.7 5.4 19.6 14.5
st
1 0.2g 33.6 11.4 45.2 31.3
1,0g Long
1,0g Trans 0.3g 44.6 17.9 59.8 48.1
0,4g Long
0,4g Trans 0.4g 49.6 28.1 64.5 52.4
0,1g Trans
0,1g Long 0.6g 36.9 51.2 55.8 62.2
-100 -50 0 50 100 0.8g 32.7 73.0 45.5 63.7
R. Displacement [mm] 1.0g 35.5 92.4 42.8 66.9
Figure 15 – Peak deformed shapes.
135
75 75
0,1g Transverse 1,0g

50 Longitudinal 50
Shear Force [kN]
25
Shear Force [kN]

25
0 0
-100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100
-25 -25
-50 -50 Tranverse

Longitudinal
-75 -75
Displacement [mm] Displacement [mm]
Figure 16 – Base shear – top displacement: a) 1 test (0.1g) and b) 7th test (0.8g) st
6.2 Observed final structural damage

Figures 17 and 18 below present some photos of damage distribution caused to the
structure at the end of experimental program (legends describe damage exhibit in each
photo).
The pattern of damage distribution through the structure at the end of the last test is in
clear agreement with the results and observations presented before. It can be
characterized by clear distinct dissipative mechanisms developed in the transverse and
longitudinal directions: in the transverse direction a soft-storey mechanism with hinges
concentrated in the top and bottom of the columns of the 1st floor which was
responsible of a permanent deformation of the experimental model in that direction;
whereas, in the longitudinal direction, a shear-wall type mechanism, dominated by an
hinge concentrated at the base of the stiffer column P6. Excessive torsion of the
structure produced a large deformation in the most eccentric column P2 of the
structure.
Finally, it is important to stress that although a very high intensity of seismic input
motion was imposed to the structure, comparing to the seismic intensity used for the
design, the structure collapse did not occur.
Figure 19 – Overall view of the final damage state of structure (left) and measurement of
permanent transverse deformation in the stiff column P6 (right) due to 1st floor soft-
storey mechanism occurred in the transverse direction.
136
Figure 20 – 1st floor soft-storey mechanism in the transverse direction (left) and concentration
of damage in the most eccentric column P2 of the structure (right).
7 CONCLUSION
The paper described and presents the principal results of the experimental program
carried out in LNEC in framework of SPEAR project. Parallel to that study it was also
developed an analytical model, representative of the scaled physical model and used to
perform a pre-test assessment of the inelastic hysteric behaviour of the tested physical
model.
The analysis of experimental data and computations with the analytical model are still
being carried out, observations and conclusions are herein reported with reserve. Those
observations regard the identification of the phenomenological mechanisms of damage
distribution along the structure and the efficiency of the analytical model to simulate
the experimental results.
Comparing the results obtained during the experimental program, presented in the
section 6.1, with results obtained in the preliminary pre-test assessment, presented in
section 3 above, it is clear that a poor correlation between predicted analytical and
experimental results was achieved. In particular, dominating frequencies of response
vibration motions in transverse, longitudinal and rotation are quite different, even for
first test (3, 2 and 2.5 greater for the analytical model, for transverse, longitudinal and
rotation respectively). This means that the analytical model seems to be far from being
representative of the physical model tested on the shake table.
Despite the clear differences between analytical and experimental results mentioned
above it must be emphasize that a similar pattern of damage distribution were attained
in the prototype analytical models, presented by Elnasha & Seong-Hoon , 2003, and
Massena, 2004, and in the physical scaled model tested on the LNEC shake table.
To study the possible origin of those differences further assumptions in the analytical
model should be included. One of those assumptions regards the possibility of
considering a larger flexural deformability at some columns bases. This could be
justified by the premature, prior to test, cracking observed in the interface between
137
column bases and foundation blocks of the physical model. Another possibility is to
take into account a larger beam-column joint deformability then initially expected; as a
matter of fact the observed premature spalling of concrete cover at the exterior
peripheric joints suggests that such assumption may be also reasonable.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The studies described in this paper were financed and developed under the European
Union project Seismic Performance Assessment and Rehabilitation (SPEAR). The pre-
test assessment of the prototype was made with the collaboration of Engª Beatriz
Massena in the scope of a MSc thesis developed in LNEC. For that help authors are
grateful.
REFERENCES
Antoniu, S & Pinho, R. 2003. Seismostruct – Seismic Analysis Program by Seismosoft,

Technical manual and user manual. University of Pavia.
Carvalho, E. 1998. Seismic testing of structures, 11th European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Coelho, E. Campos Costa, A., Candeias, P., Falcão Silva, M.J. & Mendes, L. 2005. Shaking
table tests of reinforced concrete 3-storey structure without seismic design – Construction
and tests. LNEC Report. Lisbon: Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil (to be
published).
Elnashai, A.S & Seong-Hoon, J. 2002. Seismic Assessment of a RC Structure. UIUC.
Elnashai, A.S. & Seong-Hoon, J. 2003. Seismic Performance Assessment and Rehabilitation –
Pre-test analysis. UIUC.
Eurocode 2. 2001. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures – Part 1: General Rules and
Rules for Buildings. European Committee for Standardization. Draft Nº 2.
Eurocode 8. 2003. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance – Part 1:
General Rules. Seismic action and rules for buildings. European Committee for
Standardization. Draft Nº 6.
Fardis, M.J. 2002. Design of an irregular building for the SPEAR project. Description of the 3-
storey building. University of Patras.
Massena, B. 2004. Avaliação do desempenho sísmico de uma estrutura em pórtico de betão
armado. MSc Thesis, Lisbon: Instituto Superior Técnico.
Regulamento de Estruturas de Betão Armado e Pré-esforçado (REBAP). 1983. Lisbon:
Imprensa Nacional Casa da Moeda.
138
Full scale PsD testing of the torsionally unbalanced SPEAR
structure in the ‘as-built’ and retrofitted configurations
E. Mola1, P. Negro2
1. Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy
2. Joint Research Center, Ispra, Italy
ABSTRACT: In the framework of the research activity of the ELSA Laboratory of the
Joint Research Centre, pseudo-dynamic testing of a real-size plan-wise irregular 3-
storey frame structure was carried out as the core of the research project SPEAR (Seis-
mic PErformance Assessment and Rehabilitation of existing buildings).
The main goal of the SPEAR project was contributing to the improvement of current
design, assessment and retrofitting techniques and the development of new simplified
approaches for the assessment and rehabilitation of existing building structures, by
means of a balanced combination of experimental and numerical activities.
The experimental activity carried out at the ELSA Laboratory on the full-size SPEAR
specimen consisted of three rounds of PsD tests on the structure in three different con-
figurations: at first, the ‘as-built’ structure was tested; after that, it was retrofitted by
means of Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) wraps and then tested again; finally, it was
reinforced by means of conventional Reinforced Concrete (RC) jacketing and re-tested
to failure. In the paper, the test set-up is presented and the most significant outcomes of
the tests are discussed with reference to the open issues of research in the field of tor-
sionally unbalanced buildings.
1 DESCRIPTION OF THE STRUCTURE AND TEST SET-UP
A thorough description of the aims and the experimental and numerical activity of the
SPEAR project is given elsewhere (Negro et al. 2004), (Molina et al 2004), (Molina et
al. 2005). There, the detailed description of the structure can be found, together with
that of the test set-up and of the control algorithm; in the present paper, only the most
relevant information about these issues is summarized.
The SPEAR structure is a simplification of an actual three-storey building representa-
tive of old constructions in Southern European Countries, without specific provisions
for earthquake resistance.
The structure is regular in elevation: it is a three-storey building with a storey height
of 3 meters. The plan configuration is non symmetric in two directions (Figure 1), with
2-bay frames spanning from 3 to 6 metres; the presence of a balcony on one side and of
a part of the structure 1 metre (in the weak direction) or 0.5 metre (in the strong one)
longer than the rest increases the plan irregularity, shifting the centre of stiffness away
from the centre of mass.
139
Figure 1. The SPEAR structure
Eight out of the nine columns have a square 250 by 250 mm cross-section; the ninth
one, column C6 in Figure 1, has a cross-section of 250 by 750 mm, which makes it
much stiffer and stronger than the others along the Y direction, as defined in Figure 1,
which is the strong direction for the whole structure.
As the structure is regular in elevation and has the same reinforcement in the beams
and columns of each storey and its resisting elements in both directions are all of the
same kind (frames), the structure belongs to a special class of multi-storey buildings,
the so-called regularly asymmetric multi-story structures, meaning that the centre of
mass (CM), the centre of stiffness (CR) and the centre of strength (CP) of each storey
are located along three vertical lines separated by the distances er and es.
The centre of stiffness (CR) (based on column secant-to-yield stiffness) is eccentric
with respect to the mass centre (CM) by 1.3 m in the X direction (~13% of plan dimen-
sion) and by 1.0 m in the Y direction (~9.5% of plan dimension).
The reference system used in the PsD test and the location of the CM of the structure at
the first and second floor are shown in Figure 1. The origin of the reference system is
in the centreline of column C3. The coordinates of the CM of the first two storeys with
respect to this reference system are (-1.58m, -0.85m); at the third storey the coordinates
of the CM vary slightly, becoming (-1.65m; -0.94m).
Given the doubly non-symmetrical plan configuration of the specimen, the PsD test
needed to be bi-directional, with the input applied along two orthogonal directions.
As a consequence, three degrees of freedom (DoFs) per storey were taken into account:
two translations and one rotation along the vertical axis, as opposed to the single de-
gree of freedom per storey that is usually taken into account in conventional unidirec-
tional PsD testing.
The accelerograms used as input were the Montenegro ’79 Herceg-Novi records for the
longitudinal and transverse component, artificially fitted to the EC8 spectrum, as
shown in Figure 2, scaled to different levels of PGA and applied to the structure ac-
140
cording to the combination of direction and orientation that would maximize torsional
effects, based on a number of pre-test numerical simulations.
Global quantities, such as displacement and rotation at the CM at each floor, base
shear, storey shears, storey drifts, absorbed energy at each floor and for each degree of
freedom, were measured. Local instrumentation was also set at the top and bottom of a
number of columns and beams, in the most meaningful locations
MONTENEGRO HERCEG NOVI X 1g PGA MONTENEGRO HERCEG NOVI Z 1g PGA
1.00E+00 1
8.00E-01 0.8
6.00E-01 0.6
4.00E-01 0.4
Ground Acceleration [g]

Ground Acceleration [g]
2.00E-01 0.2
0.00E+00 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
-2.00E-01 -0.2
-4.00E-01 -0.4
-6.00E-01 -0.6
-8.00E-01 -0.8
-1.00E+00 -1
Time [s] Time [s]
HERCEG NOVI RECORDS PGA 1g 5% DAMPING PSEUDO-

ACCELERATION SPECTRA
30.00
25.00
Pseudo-Acceleration [m/s/s]
20.00
X COMPONENT
15.00
Y COMPONENT
10.00
5.00
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
Period [s]
Figure 2. Herceg-Novi records PGA=1g; a) longitudinal component b) transverse component c)

acceleration response spectra of the X and Y components
2 EXPERIMENTAL ACTIVITY
As mentioned above, the experimental activity carried out during the SPEAR project
consisted of three different rounds of PsD tests on the specimen in the original and in
two different retrofitted configurations. Each round consisted in three tests at different
PGA levels: the 0.02g control test from which the initial modal properties of the struc-
ture (first mode shapes, initial frequencies and modal damping values) were estimated,
(Molina et al. 1999), the 0.15 and 0.20g PGA tests (for the ‘as-built’ structure) or the
0.20g and 0.30g PGA tests (for the retrofitted specimen), during which the non-linear
range of behaviour was entered.
In the following, the outcomes of each round of tests will be summarized; for the sake
of brevity, only the results from the highest intensity test of each round will be pre-
sented.
In the end, a comparison between the responses in the different configurations will be
carried out, in order to draw some preliminary conclusions on the effectiveness of the
retrofitting interventions.
141
2.1 ‘As-built’ configuration
2.1.1 Displacements time history
During the tests, the displacement time-histories in the X, Y and θ directions were
measured at the three floors of the specimen. The displacements and the rotation are
those of the CM. The measured displacements were significantly different from those
predicted by pre-test numerical analyses, in particular the torsional response turned out
to be much larger.
The maximum displacements were above 100 mm both in the X direction and in the Y
direction; the maximum rotation was about 20 mrad at the top storey.
2.1.2 Floor hysteresis loops
In Figures 3-5 the storey hysteresis loops for the X, Y and θ directions are reported.
The interstorey shears (or torques) are plotted against the interstorey drifts (or rota-
tions). It can be observed that the level mainly involved in the energy dissipation proc-
ess was level 2 and the direction where the absorbed energy was larger is the Y direc-
tion.
HERCEG NOVI RECORDS PGA 0.20g HYSTERESIS LOOP X HERCEG NOVI RECORDS PGA 0.20g HYSTERESIS LOOP X
DIRECTION DIRECTION
200 200
150 150
100 100
Interstorey Shear [kN]
50 50
0 LEVEL 1 0 LEVEL 2
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -150
-200 -200
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Interstorey Drift [m m] Interstorey Drift [mm]
HERCEG NOVI RECORDS PGA 0.20g HYSTERESIS LOOP X

DIRECTION
200
150
100
50
0 LEVEL 3
-50
-100
-150
-200
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Interstorey Drift [mm]
Figure 3. Hysteresis loops in the X direction
142
HERCEG NOVI RECORDS PGA 0.20g HYSTERESIS LOOP Y HERCEG NOVI RECORDS PGA 0.20g HYSTERESIS LOOP Y
DIRECTION DIRECTION
300 300
250 250
200 200
150 150

100 100
50 50
0 LEVEL 1 0 LEVEL 2
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -150
-200 -200
-250 -250
-300 -300
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Interstorey Drift [mm] Interstorey Drift [mm]
HERCEG NOVI RECORDS PGA 0.20g HYSTERESIS LOOP Y

DIRECTION
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 LEVEL 3
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Interstorey Drift [mm]
Figure 4. Hysteresis loops in the Y direction
HERCEG NOVI RECORD PGA 0.2g HYSTERESIS LOOP HERCEG NOVI RECORD PGA 0.2g HYSTERESIS LOOP
ROTATION TETA ROTATION TETA
1000 1000
800 800
600 600
Interstorey Torque [kNm]
400 400
200 200
0 LEVEL 1 0 LEVEL 2
-200 -200
-400 -400
-600 -600
-800 -800
-1000 -1000
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Interstorey Rotation [millirad] Interstorey Rotation [millirad]
HERCEG NOVI RECORD PGA 0.2g HYSTERESIS LOOP

ROTATION TETA
1000
800
600
400
200
0 LEVEL 3
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Interstorey Rotation [millira d]
Figure 5. Hysteresis loops in rotation θ
2.1.3 Column interstorey drifts time history
The interstorey drifts at each storey are different for each of the nine columns of the
specimen, due to torsional effects.
These drifts were calculated, based on the hypothesis of infinite rigidity of the floor
slabs, by means of simple geometric considerations.
143
The X and Y direction drifts of each column are in fact obtained adding to the drifts of
the CM in the same direction the rotation at the CM multiplied by the distance between
the CM and the considered column, measured in the direction perpendicular to the one
in which the drift is being calculated.
Figure 6) shows a representation of interstorey drifts of the second storey (the largest
ones) for the three most representative out of the nine columns; the drifts in the Y di-
rection are plotted against those in the X direction, together with those at the CM, thus
a comparison to be made between the drift measured at the CM and the drifts of the
other columns. As it could be expected for an irregular structure, a difference exists be-
tween the two, so that it is not on the safe side to estimate the displacements and to as-
sess the structure based on the displacements of the CM only. The edge columns on the
flexible sides (i.e. C2 and C7, whose plots are reported in Figure 6) are those where the
gap is more pronounced, whereas, as can be seen in Figure 6, the drifts of the central
column C3, which is the nearest to the CM, were only very slightly affected by the ro-
tational DoF.
HERCEG NOVI 0.2g COLUMN DRIFT HERCEG NOVI 0.2g COLUMN DRIFT
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
Drift Y [mm]
Drift Y [m m]
C1 C7
0 0
CM CM
-20 -20
-40 -40
-60 -60
-80 -80
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Drift X [mm] Drift X [mm]
HERCEG NOVI 0.2g COLUMN DRIFT
80
60
40
20
Drift Y [mm]
C3
0
CM
-20
-40
-60
-80
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Drift X [mm]
Figure 6. Second storey X and Y direction drifts of columns C1, C7, C3
The extent of the difference in displacements (and drifts) is a very important outcome,
taking into account the torsional response which was much larger than predicted: the
test showed that, despite an eccentricity that could be defined not too large (in the or-
der of 10% of the plan dimension), the effects of torsion on the drifts of the edge col-
umns are significant in both directions. In the X direction, where the structure is less
rigid and the drift at the CM is already quite large, the maximum drift reached at the
CM is 55 mm, whereas the maximum drift reached at the edge columns C1, C2 and C5
was about 70 mm, a difference which is not negligible. In the Y direction the maximum
drift reached at the CM was 45 mm, whereas the maximum drift of the edge columns
C4 and C7 was above 70 mm, i.e., more than 50% larger.
144
2.2 FRP-retrofitted configuration

The aim of the design of the FRP-retrofitting intervention was to provide the vertical
elements of the structure (especially the edge ones) with the ductility necessary for
them to withstand increased lateral drifts, due to the combined effects of the transla-
tional motion and the rotation at the CM of each floor. The elements in their original
configuration completely lacked ductility, mainly due to the non-existent confinement
effect provided by the stirrups, whose spacing was as large as the lateral dimension of
the columns. The designed intervention consisted in the application of uniaxial glass-
fiber wraps to the bottom and top (60 cm) of each column at all the floors, plus quadri-
axial glass-fiber wraps to the whole height of the strong column (C6) and on the sides
of the four corner joints at all the floors. Two tests were then carried out at the PGA
levels of 0.20g and 0.30g. In the following, the results of the 0.30g PGA test are re-
ported.
During the 0.30g PGA test, the maximum displacements were around 200mm in the X
direction and 120mm in the Y direction, with a maximum rotation of 26 mrad. The ro-
tation did not strongly increase with respect to the 0.20g input test but anyway the dis-
placements increased considerably in the X direction, whereas in the Y direction the
response exhibited only a slight increase.
2.2.2 Global hysteresis loops
COMPARISON OF GLOBAL X DIRECTION HYSTERESIS LOOPS COMPARISON OF GLOBAL Y DIRECTION HYSTERESIS LOOPS
400 400
350 350
300 300
250 250
ORIG. ORIG.
200 200 0.20g
0.20g
150 PGA 150 PGA
100 100
Base Shear [kN]
Base Shear [kN]
50 50
1ST. 1ST.
0 0
RETROF. RETROF.
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 0.30g
0.30g
-100 PGA -100 PGA
-150 -150
-200 -200
-250 -250
-300 -300
-350 -350
-400 -400
Top Displacem ent [mm ] Top Displacem ent [mm ]
COMPARISON OF GLOBAL TETA ROTATION HYSTERESIS

LOOPS
1200
1000
800
ORIG.
600 0.20g
400 PGA
Base Torque [kNm ]
200
1ST.
0
RETROF.
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 -200 0 5 10 15 20 25 0.30g
PGA
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
Top Rotation [mrad]
Figure 7. Hysteresis loops in the X direction
In Figure 7, the global hystereis loops (i.e. the base shear vs top diaplacement plots) for
the FRP retrofitted specimen are reported (magenta plot), together with those for the
145
structure in the ‘as-built’ configuration (blue plot); in both cases the plots refer to the
highest intensity level for that particular configuration.
It can be observed that much larger displacements were reached in both directions
without loss of strength or stiffness; also, the initial stiffness of the loop remained the
same. The relative importance of rotational DoFs with respect to translational ones was
also unchanged.
2.2.3 Column interstorey drifts time-histories
Figure 8 shows a representation of interstorey drifts of the second storey (the largest
ones) for the three most representative ones out of the nine columns.
HERCEG NOVI 0.3g COLUMN DRIFT HERCEG NOVI 0.3g COLUMN DRIFT
100 100
75 75
50 50
25 25
Drift Y [mm]
Drift Y [mm]
C1 C7
0 0
CM CM
-25 -25
-50 -50
-75 -75
-100 -100
-220 -180 -140 -100 -60 -20 20 60 100 140 180 -180 -140 -100 -60 -20 20 60 100 140 180
Drift X [mm] Drift X [mm]
HERCEG NOVI 0.3g COLUMN DRIFT
100
75
50
25
Drift Y [mm]
C3
0
CM
-25
-50
-75
-100
-180 -140 -100 -60 -20 20 60 100 140 180
Drift X [mm]
Figure 8. Second storey X and Y direction drifts of columns C1, C7, C3, compared to those of
CM
From Figure 8, it can be observed that strong torsional effects are still present in the
response to the 0.30 g input excitation. In this case the rotation had effects throughout
the whole duration of the excitation, rather than concentrated in the latter part of the re-
sponse. This might be due to the effects of the previous excitation at 0.2g PGA.
2.3 RC-jacketed configuration

The aim of the second retrofitting intervention was to reduce the importance of tor-
sional effects in the response by relocating the center of strength of each floor of the
structure (i.e. the locus where the resultant of the yield moments of the vertical ele-
ments is located at each floor), without directly tackling stiffness eccentricity.
146
According to previous research in the field, (Rutenberg 2002), in fact, in the inelas-
tic range of the response torsional effects are mainly governed by strength eccentricity,
rather than stiffness eccentricity.
The intervention tackled only selected vertical elements. Two columns were chosen,
column C1 and column C4, to undergo concrete jacketing, which was mainly aimed at
strongly increasing the rebar, with a relatively small increase in the column section di-
mensions.
The two columns’ cross sections were increased from the original 25x25 cm to the
jacketed 40x40 cm. New rebar was added: 8 16mm diameter bars per column were
added as longitudinal reinforcement, plus new 8mm diameter stirrups were added, with
10 cm spacing at the top and bottom of the columns at each storey (the first 70 cm from
the slab) and 15 cm spacing for the remaining length of the columns.
The last round consisted of two tests, at 0.20g and 0.30g PGA intensity level. In the
following, the outcomes of the latter are reported.
During the 0.30g PGA test, the maximum displacements were around 160mm in the X
direction and 130mm in the Y direction, with a maximum rotation of 23 mrad.
These displacements were as large as those reached in the FRP retrofitted configu-
ration under the same intensity level earthquake.
2.3.2 Floor hysteresis loops
COMPARISON OF GLOBAL X DIRECTION HYSTERESIS LOOPS COMPARISON OF GLOBAL Y DIRECTION HYSTERESIS LOOPS
400 400
350 350
300 300
250 250
ORIG. ORIG.
200 200
0.30g 0.20g
150 PGA 150 PGA
100 100
Base Shear [kN]
Base Shear [kN]
50 50
2ND. 2ND.
0 0
RETROF. RETROF.
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 0.30g
0.30g
-100 PGA -100 PGA
-150 -150
-200 -200
-250 -250
-300 -300
-350 -350
-400 -400
Top Displa cement [mm] Top Displacement [mm]
COMPARISON OF GLOBAL TETA ROTATION HYSTERESIS

LOOPS
1200
1000
800
ORIG.
600
0.20g
400 PGA
Base Torque [kNm]
200
2ND.
0
RETROF.
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 -200 0 5 10 15 20 0.30g
PGA
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
Top Rotation [mrad]
Figure 9 – Hysteresis loops in the X direction
In Figure 9, the global hysteresis loops at 0.30g PGA are represented for the RC-
jacketed structure, together with those for the ‘as-built’ structure, for the 0.20g PGA
147
earthquake. It can be observed that in this case the relative importance of the rotational
DoF with respect to the translational ones in the energy dissipation process decreased;
the attained maximum rotations were also reduced. The initial slope of the loops in-
creased, as the retrofitting intervention modified the global structural stiffness, affect-
ing in particular the X direction, which was originally significantly weaker than the Y
direction, thus being more sensitive to the increase in the cross-section of the two retro-
fitted vertical elements.
2.3.3 Column interstorey drifts time-histories
RC-JACKETED STRUCTURE 0.3g PGA HERCEG-NOVI INPUT: RC-JACKETED STRUCTURE 0.3g PGA HERCEG-NOVI INPUT:
2ND STOREY COLUMN DRIFTS 2ND STOREY COLUMN DRIFTS
80.00 80.00
60.00 60.00
40.00
40.00
20.00
Drift Y [m]
Drift Y [m]
20.00
C1 C2
0.00
CM CM
-80.00 -60.00 -40.00 -20.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 0.00
-20.00 -80.00 -60.00 -40.00 -20.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00
-20.00
-40.00
-60.00 -40.00
-80.00 -60.00
Drift X [m] Drift X [m]
RC-JACKETED STRUCTURE 0.3g PGA HERCEG-NOVI INPUT:

2ND STOREY COLUMN DRIFTS
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
Drift Y [m]
C3
0.00
CM
-60.00 -40.00 -20.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00
-20.00
-40.00
-60.00
-80.00
Drift X [m]
Figure 10. Second storey X and Y direction drifts of columns C1, C2, C3, compared to those of
CM
Figure 10 allows a comparison between the drift measured at the CM and the drifts
of the edge columns, the most displaced ones, to be made. As could be expected for an
irregular structure, a difference exists between the two, so that it is not always correct
and on the safe side to estimate the displacements and to assess the structure based on
the displacements of the CM only.
In this case, the CM to which the magenta plot refers is the one of the structure in
its original configuration. Following the jacketing intervention, though, the location of
both the CM and the CR of structure changed; for this reason, additional differences
can be noted in the plots between the CM and the single column polar diagrams.
In general, from the analysis of the experimental data, it was noted that the rota-
tional component of the response was quite significantly reduced by the retrofitting in-
tervention, as intended in the design phase; this was not enough, though, to allow the
structure to withstand the high intensity (0.30g PGA) excitation, as opposed to the case
of the FRP retrofitted structure, that had easily undergone that level of excitation with-
out exhibiting major damage.
148
In fact, after the 0.20g PGA test, it was clear that the structure did not have a suffi-
cient ductility supply to meet the displacement demands, however reduced by the retro-
fitting intervention, which the 0.30g PGA input would have imposed. In fact, signifi-
cant damage was detected at the end of this test on the element with the highest axial
load ratio, the central column C3: heavy spalling of cover concrete at the top of it at the
first storey was visible, with initiation of buckling of the longitudinal rebar. This dam-
age increased in the last test.
In the end, under the 0.30g PGA input, the test was stopped after a duration of
12.93s of the accelerogram (the original length was 15s for the recorded excitation plus
5s of free vibration to allow the structure to stop shaking, for a total duration of 20s of
input signal) because two vertical elements completely collapsed, which actually coin-
cided with global structural failure, making it pointless and even dangerous to continue
the test.
The two failed vertical elements were column C3 (the central one) and column C9
(the one nearest to C3) at the first floor. This was due to their high axial load: C3 at the
first floor had the highest axial load of all the vertical elements; the higher the axial
load the more reduced the ductility capacity of the element. For this reason, the column
could not meet the displacement request during the excitation and completely failed at
the top. Cover concrete was completely spalled, and the exposed longitudinal rebar to-
tally buckled with complete dislocation and became inefficient. For this reason, and
without the confinement of the transverse reinforcement, even core concrete com-
pletely crushed and fell apart, thus making the original cross section practically non-
existent. At that moment, the portion of axial load originally competing to C3 migrated
to the nearest column, C9, which turned out to be at this moment in an even worse
situation than C3: for this reason, shortly after, C9 failed completely in the same way
as C3, with even more concrete crushing and dislocation and fracture of longitudinal
rebar.
3 DISCUSSION OF THE OUTCOMES
The post-test data interpretation phase, which started right after the end of the third
round of test, is still underway, and the wealth of data collected during the lifespan of
the SPEAR project will certainly be the object of accurate study by a number of re-
searchers in the near future.
The main conclusions that were drawn at the time of drafting of the present paper
are presented in the following.
3.1 General
The significant extent of the difference between the drifts at the CM and the edge col-
umn drifts is one of the most important outcomes of the test: the torsional effects on the
response turned out to be much larger than predicted.
This result confirmed one of the basic remarks that had been drawn at the end of a
pre-test assessment exercise, consisting in the application of current codified assess-
ment procedures to predict the seismic response of the specimen. It was in fact con-
149
cluded, (Mola, Negro, Pinto 2004), with regard to the use of pushover analysis in as-
sessing the displacement capacity of irregular multistory buildings, that conventional
pushover tends to underestimate the displacements because the pushover curve refers
to the CM of the model. The prescription of the applied procedures (i.e. EC8 Part 3
(2001), FEMA 356, (ASCE-FEMA 2000), New Zealandese Guidelines, (New Zealand
Building Authority 2002), Japanese Guidelines, (Japanese Building Authority 1990))
to take into account the increases of displacements on the edge elements should thus be
more precise and compelling, because to reach a safe-side estimation of the flexible
edge elements drifts, increases as high as 50% of the displacements at the CM can be
necessary even for moderate eccentricity.
These large increases are in fact larger than could be expected when considering the
values of plan eccentricity of the structure in themselves: an eccentricity of around
10% is defined in all procedures as not likely to have major effects; for example, the
structure falls in the EC8 (EC8 2001), category where the separate analysis in the two
main direction is allowed and in the Japanese Guidelines, (Japanese Building Authority
1990), it is in the category with the lowest capacity-reductive factor.
Nevertheless, it was proven by the test that in this case the interaction of the eccen-
tricity in both directions had a role that cannot be neglected in enhancing the torsional
effect on the response even if the two eccentricity values were not large.
Moreover, the failure mechanism, a soft storey one developed at the second storey,
was not easily predictable, neither by means of conventional assessment procedures,
neither by employing structural analysis software, even if research oriented, with 3D
dynamic analysis capabilities.
This confirms that higher modes effect due to the irregularity could affect the dy-
namic response in such a way that it becomes hardly predictable a priori.
3.2 Effects of the two different retrofitting strategies: a comparison

As discussed before, one of the main goals of the SPEAR project was to come out with
an assessment of existing different seismic retrofitting techniques, either conventional
like RC jacketing, or more innovative like FRP wrapping, as to their effectiveness in
improving the global seismic performance of existing structures, and possibly to con-
ceive improvement to such techniques, based on the performance of the retrofitted
specimens during the PsD tests.
To this end, each of the two retrofitting interventions was designed to tackle spe-
cific different problems that the response of the structure in the ‘as-built’ configuration
had pointed out. As a consequence, the performance of the two retrofitted specimens
was expected to be different, as in fact it turned out to be.
Interesting remarks on the relative performance of the structure in the three different
configurations can be made when examining Figure 11)-13), representing the maxi-
mum interstorey drifts at the CM of each storey, measured during the highest intensity
level test of each of the three rounds. Such plots can be considered as a sort of vulner-
ability curves, even if built only out of a very small number of points (corresponding to
intensity levels) and not explicitly taking into account the accumulated damage.
It can be observed that the original structure became highly vulnerable between the
0.15g and 0.20g intensity levels, especially at the second floor and in the X direction:
150
the slope of the plot increases sharply. This in fact corresponded to the development of
significant damage indicating the vicinity of failure of some of the structural elements
during the 0.2g PGA test. The failure mechanism approached during the test was in
fact that of a soft-storey kind in the X direction, as this was the weak direction for the
whole structure.
On the contrary, the FRP-retrofitted specimen exhibited a less steep slope up to
0.20g PGA and even further, to the 0.30g PGA level, especially when the Y direction
is considered. It must be noted, though, that the initial slope is for all the DoFs the
same as that of the original structure: this is what was expected, as the intervention was
not intended to increase the stiffness of the specimen; this fact is further confirmed
when noting that the critical direction is still the X one, due to the fact that no balanc-
ing of strength and/or stiffness was pursued in this case. The differences in the curves
confirms that the FRP retrofitting intervention provided the structure with a sufficient
ductility for it to withstand the 0.30g PGA level without approaching the failure zone.
The intervention proved more effective in improving the response of the structure in
the Y direction and in rotation (the slope of the corresponding curves is almost hori-
zontal or even negative between 0.20g and 0.30g), whereas, despite the additional duc-
tility, the X direction was still more challenged (positive slope).
It can thus be concluded that the FRP retrofitting intervention thus tackled effi-
ciently the shortcomings of the ‘as-built’ structure by modifying its capacity, without
modifying the drift demand: the complementary face of the problem was approached
with the second intervention, RC jacketing.
When observing the corresponding curves in Figure 11)-13), it can be noted that the
initial slope is less steep than the other two in all cases: this means that the intervention
increased the stiffness of the structure, thus reducing the maximum i-s drifts at all lev-
els. The drifts where reduced proportionally at all the levels for the X and Y direction,
whereas a more significant reduction in the interstorey rotation at the second level can
be noted: this suggests that the intervention was effective in reducing the effects of tor-
sion in the development of the failure mechanism at the second floor, thus improving
the global structural behaviour.
This demonstrates that the second intervention reached its design aim too: relocat-
ing the center of strength of the structure reduced the relative importance of the rota-
tional DoF with respect to the translational ones, thus effectively increasing the seis-
mic resistance on the structure affecting the demand side.
The overall effect of the RC-jacketing intervention, though, was not as effective as
that of the FRP wrapping, as can be notice when comparing the two curves: the reduc-
tion in drifts was not enough when the 0.30g intensity level was reached: the structure
did not have the necessary ductility (the intervention did not increase the ductility at
all) and for this reason it failed, as opposed to the perfectly healthy behaviour it had
under the same earthquake when the vertical elements were confined with fiber wraps.
The same remarks regarding the trends of seismic behaviour of the specimen hold
true when referring to the drifts of the most displaced column at each storey, instead of
the drifts at the CM; the difference remains in the fact that in edge columns the drifts
are remarkably larger that at the CM, so the vulnerability curves have a steeper slope,
meaning an increased sensitivity to increases of the intensity level, and an overall
worse behaviour.
151
When the effects of torsion are somehow incorporated in locally meaningful quanti-
ties (in this case the drifts in the two main direction), this must be taken into account
when assessing the structure and duly accounted for in the criteria enforced by codified
assessment approaches.
COMPARISONS OF MAX I-S DRIFTS X DIRECTION COMPARISONS OF MAX I-S DRIFTS X DIRECTION
120 120
ORIGINAL ORIGINAL
LEVEL1 LEVEL2
100 100
1ST 1ST
RETROF. 80 RETROF.
80
LEVEL1 LEVEL2
Drifts [mm]
Drifts [mm]
2ND 2ND
60 RETROF. 60
RETROF.
LEVEL1 LEVEL2
40 40
20 20
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
PGA Value s [g] PGA Values [g]
COMPARISONS OF MAX I-S DRIFTS X DIRECTION
120
ORIGINAL
LEVEL3
100
1ST
80 RETROF.
LEVEL3
Drifts [mm]
2ND
60 RETROF.
LEVEL3
40
20
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
PGA Values [g]
Figure11. Comparison of maximum interstorey drifts at all storeys in the X direction

COMPARISONS OF MAX I-S DRIFTS Y DIRECTION COMPARISONS OF MAX I-S DRIFTS Y DIRECTION
120 ORIGINAL 120

ORIGINAL
LEVEL1
LEVEL2
100 100 2ND
1ST RETROF.
RETROF. LEVEL2
80 LEVEL1 80 1ST.
RETROF.
Drifts [mm]
Drifts [mm]
2ND LEVEL2
60 RETROF. 60 S i 5
LEVEL1
40 40
20 20
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
PGA Values [g] PGA Values [g]
COMPARISONS OF MAX I-S DRIFTS Y DIRECTION
120
ORIGINAL
LEVEL3
100
80
1ST
Drifts [mm]
RETROF.
60 LEVEL3
40 2ND
RETROF.
LEVEL3
20
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
PGA Values [g]
Figure12. Comparison of maximum interstorey drifts at all storeys in the Y direction
152
COMPARISONS OF MAX I-S TETA ROTATIONS COMPARISONS OF MAX I-S TETA ROTATIONS
ORIGINAL
120 120
LEVEL2
ORIGINAL
LEVEL1
100 100 1ST
2ND RETROF.
Equivalent Drifts [mrad*m]

RETROF. LEVEL2
80 LEVEL1 80
1ST. 2ND
RETROF. RETROF.
60 LEVEL1 60 LEVEL2
40 40
20 20
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
PGA Values [g] PGA Value s [g]
COMPARISONS OF MAX I-S TETA ROTATIONS
120
100 ORIGINAL
LEVEL3
80 2ND
RETROF.
LEVEL3
1ST.
60 RETROF.
LEVEL3
40
20
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
PGA Values [g]
Figure13. Comparison of maximum interstorey rotations θ at all storeys
4 CONCLUSIONS
The experimental activity carried out at the ELSA Laboratory in the framework of the
SPEAR research project was presented. It consisted in bi-directional PsD testing of a
full-scale RC frame structure representative of older European design and construction
practice. The structure first underwent tests in the ‘as-built’ configuration; after that, it
underwent two different retrofitting interventions (the first one consisting in FRP
wrapping of columns and joints, the second one in RC jacketing of selected vertical
elements), after each of which it was tested again.
In the paper, the outcomes of the three rounds of tests were presented and a com-
parison on the performance of the retrofitting intervention was made, with reference to
the open issues related to the importance of torsional effects in the seismic response of
plan-wise irregular existing buildings.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Project SPEAR was funded by the European Commission under the “Competitive
and Sustainable Growth” Programme, Contract N. G6RD-2001-00525.
Bi-directional pseudodynamic testing on a full-scale complete building was a highly
innovative and challenging accomplishment; the tests, which were a common effort of
the whole ELSA staff, was made possible by the expertise, dedication, as well as for-
bearance and friendship of all the colleagues involved.
153
REFERENCES
ASCE-FEMA: Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA
356, November 2000
Eurocode 8: “Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 3: Strengthening and repair of
buildings”, Doc CEN/TC250/SC8/N293, Draft No 1, 2001
Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association 1990. Standards for seismic capacity evalua-
tion of existing reinforced concrete buildings, 1977 revised 1990 (in Japanese)
Mola, E., Negro, P., Pinto, A.V. 2004. Evaluation of current approaches for the analysis and
design of multi-storey torsionally unbalanced frames. Proc. of 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Paper N. 3304, Vancouver, 2004
Molina, F. J., Pegon, P., Verzeletti, G. 1999. Time-domain identification from seismic pseu-
dodynamic test results on civil engineering specimens. Proc. of the 2nd International Con-
ference on identification in Engineering Systems, The Cromwell Press
Molina, F. J., Buchet, Ph., Magonette, G.E., Hubert, O., Negro, P. 2004. Bidirectional pseu-
dodynamic technique for testing a three-storey reinforced concrete building. Proc. of 13th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper N. 75, 1-6 August 2004, Vancouver,
Canada
Molina, F. J., Buchet, Ph., Magonette, G. E., Hubert, O., Negro, P. 2005. Full-scale bidirec-
tional PsD testing of the torsionally unbalanced SPEAR structure: method, algorithm and
experimental set-up. Proc. of SPEAR International Workshop, Ispra, 4-5 April 2005
Negro, P., Mola, E., Molina, F.J., Magonette, G. 2004. Full-Scale PsD Testing Of A Torsion-
ally Unbalanced Three-Storey Non-Seismic RC Frame. Proc. of 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Paper N. 968, 1-6 August 2004, Vancouver, Canada
New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering 2002. The Assessment and im-
provement of the structural performance of earthquake risk buildings, Draft 06 May 2002
Rutenberg, A. 2002. EAEE Task Group (TG) 8: Behaviour of irregular and complex structures,
asymmetric structures – Progress since 1998, Proc. of 12th European Conference on Earth-
quake Engineering, Paper N. 832, Elsevier Science Ltd, London, 2002
154
Full-scale bidirectional PsD testing of the torsionally
unbalanced SPEAR structure: method, algorithm and
experimental set-up
F. J. Molina, Ph. Buchet, G. E. Magonette, O. Hubert, P. Negro
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, ELSA Laboratory, Ispra, Italy
ABSTRACT: Within the project SPEAR, a full-size three-storey non-symmetric RC

building has been seismically tested at the ELSA laboratory by means of the PsD
method. Since the induced torsion was one of the major concerns about the response of
this structure, the tests included bidirectional excitation and allowed for three in-plane
DoFs per floor: two displacements plus one rotation. The equation of motion is formu-
lated and integrated in generalised DoFs, which are those displacements and rotation
defined at the CM of each floor. At every step of integration the experimental restoring
forces are statically transformed into generalised forces and, once the new generalised
displacements are computed, the target displacements for the transducers on the struc-
ture are obtained by a cinematic transformation. The implemented PsD technique al-
lows for the use of more than three actuators per floor in order improve the load distri-
bution and avoid possible saturation of the actuators.
1 INTRODUCTION
Through the hybrid technique of pseudodynamic (PsD) method, the seismic response
of large-size specimens can be obtained by means of the on-line combination of ex-
perimental restoring forces with analytical inertial and seismic-equivalent forces (Ta-
kanashi, 1986). Thanks to the use of quasistatic imposed displacements, the accuracy
of the control and hence the quality of such test is normally better than for a shaking-
table test, especially for heavy and tall specimens.
For PsD testing of building specimens in one direction without torsion, normally
two hydraulic actuators acting in that direction are used per floor. A first bi-directional
PsD test was successfully performed on a real-size frame in 1997 at the European
Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA) by using two actuators acting on each
direction for everyone of its three floors (Molina, 1999). At every integration step of
the equation of motion, the developed procedure included, firstly, the transformation of
measured restoring forces from the four actuator coordinates to the three generalised
degrees of freedom (DoFs) of every floor, secondly, the finite-difference prediction of
the new displacement and, thirdly, its transformation into actuator displacements.
Those new target displacements were then imposed to the structure.
155
The testing technique described here was applied for obtaining the experimental
bidirectional response of a reinforced concrete (RC) three-storey building within pro-
ject SPEAR. The project SPEAR (Seismic Performance Assessment and Rehabilita-
tion) focused on existing buildings because of the current economic and social rele-
vance of their seismic performance. The experimental campaign on this structure
foresaw rounds of seismic tests for the original not retrofitted structure as well as for
two retrofitted configurations. This paper is devoted to the description of the used test-
ing technique and set-up; more information about the project, the specimen and the test
results are given by Negro (2005) and Mola (2004).
2 TESTING TECHNIQUE
This section of the paper covers all the aspects of the applied PsD testing technique,
starting with the formulated general equation of motion (including three DoFs per
floor) and time integration algorithm, and following with the particular force and dis-
placements coordinate transformations for the adopted control system and strategy. De-
tails on the implemented step-by-step testing procedure and characteristics of the test-
ing hardware and software are also given. Most of the fundamentals of this testing
technique developed at ELSA were already described by Molina (1999).
2.1 Equation of motion
The mass of the building will be assumed to be concentrated at the rigid floors and for
every floor the equation of motion in the horizontal plane will be
ma + r = − mjag (1)
where the floor mass matrix
⎡ m 0 0⎤
m = ⎢ 0 m 0⎥
(2)
⎢ ⎥
⎣⎢ 0 0 I ⎦⎥
contains the floor mass m and moment of inertia I at the Centre of Mass (CM) and
T d2 d2 T
a = ⎡⎣ a x ay aθ ⎤⎦ = d = ⎡d x dy dθ ⎤⎦
dt 2 ⎣
(3)
dt 2
is the vector of relative accelerations, which is the second derivative with respect to
time of the floor relative displacements d x , d y and rotation dθ at the CM (Figure 1).
There also, the vector of conjugated generalised restoring forces
T (4)
r = ⎡⎣ rx ry rθ ⎤⎦
156
contains the resultant forces and moment at the CM which are a function of the defor-
mations of the building. At the right-hand side of equation (1), we also find the vector
containing the ground accelerations in directions x and y and the influence matrix:
⎡1 0⎤
j = ⎢0 1⎥
T
ag = ⎡⎣ a gx a gy ⎤⎦ ,
⎢ ⎥ (5, 6)
⎣⎢0 0⎦⎥
Figure 1. Floor axis, actuators and displacement transducers

Thus, the system of equations of motion for the multi-storey structure can be writ-
ten as
MA + R = −MJag (7)
with the matrices
⎡ 0⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
M=⎢ ⎥ ; A = ⎢ a ⎥ ; R = ⎢r ⎥ ; J = ⎢ j⎥ (8)
m
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣⎢ 0 ⎦⎥ ⎣⎢ ⎦⎥ ⎣⎢ ⎦⎥ ⎣⎢ ⎦⎥
taking into account the different floors of the building.
2.2 Time integration algorithm
Equation (7) is now generalised as
MA + CV + R = F (9)
where C is a viscous damping matrix, V is the vector of relative velocities and F is a
general external force vector including either seismic equivalent forces or directly ap-
plied forces. For classic materials such as steel or concrete, most of the damping is hys-
157
teretic, which is included in the velocity-independent restoring forces R , so that C

matrix is taken null for the PsD model.
Two different time integration algorithms are used at ELSA for PsD testing
(Molina, 1999):
• the Explicit Newmark algorithm (equivalent to central differences)
• the α Operator Splitting algorithm
The second method requires and estimation of the stiffness matrix of the structure
which may affect the results if not properly chosen or updated. For this reason, the Ex-
plicit Newmark algorithm is the preferred one whenever a time increment ∆t may be
chosen such that the algorithm is stable, i.e.,
∆t ≤ Tmin π (10)
where Tmin is the minimum period of the structure, and the test duration is feasible.
The Explicit Newmark algorithm was adopted for the current test and will be de-
scribed here. It is based on the Newmark scheme, which can be stated as:
MA n +1 + CVn +1 + R n +1 = Fn +1
⎡⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎤ (11)
D n +1 = D n + ∆tVn + ∆t 2 ⎢⎜ − β ⎟ A n + β A n +1 ⎥
⎣⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎦
Vn +1 = Vn + ∆t ⎡⎣ (1 − γ ) A n + γ A n +1 ⎤⎦
with
1 (12)
β = 0; γ =
2
Contrarily to an integration based on a finite element model of the structure, in a
PsD test, the restoring forces at every time step are not computed but directly measured
by imposing the corresponding displacements on the physical model:
R n +1 = R ( Dn +1 ) (13)
Starting from known initial values D1 , V1 , A1 , at time step n =1 (t =0) , the succes-
sive computation stages of the method at every time step are:
Stage 1) Compute at instant n+1 the values of displacements Dn+1 using equation
(11).
Stage 2) Impose to the structure the new displacement Dn+1 and measure the associ-
ated restoring force (13).
Stage 3) Compute the acceleration at new time n+1 from the equilibrium equation
n +1 [ −1
]
A = M + ∆t 2 C ⎡ F − R − C V + ∆ t 2 A ⎤
⎣ n +1 n +1 ( n n )⎦ (14)
Stage 4) Increment the step counter n ← n+1 and go back to stage 1 until the final
time is reached.
158
2.3 Cinematic transformation from generalised to transducer displacements

At every step of the PsD test, the computed generalised displacement of the floor is
imposed through the actuators with feedback on the displacement transducers. Thus, in
order to determine the target displacements at transducer level, a geometric transforma-
tion is needed. A minimum number of 3 high-resolution linear displacement transduc-
ers are attached to each floor for control purposes.
As shown in Figure 2, each one of these control displacement transducers consists
of a slider G1-G2 on which a body M translates and gives a measure of its relative po-
sition on the slider. This slider is attached to a fixed reference frame while the mobile
body M is connected to the measuring point D on the structure through a pin-jointed
rod.
D
S D
q
yˆ
D’ eG T θ Sˆ D
G1 M G2
xˆ
lD D CM
y
SD
SC
x
O
Figure 2. Control displacement transducer
For every floor, starting from a known set of generalised displacements d (3), the
position of the floor CM is updated as
S = S0 + d C C
(15)
where
S C = [xC yC θ C ]
T (16)
are its global coordinates and S 0C are their reference value for zero displacement. Then,
the position of the measuring point D is likewise updated as
⎡x ⎤ ⎡x ⎤
S D = ⎢ D ⎥ = ⎢ C ⎥ + TθC Sˆ D (17)
⎣ y D ⎦ ⎣ yC ⎦
where
159
⎡ xˆ ⎤
Sˆ D = ⎢ D ⎥ (18)
⎣ yˆ D ⎦
are the coordinates of point D in a reference system local to the floor, centred at its
CM, and
⎡cosθ C − sin θ C ⎤
TθC = ⎢
cosθ C ⎥⎦
(19)
⎣ sin θ C
is a rotation matrix. Assuming an infinitely rigid floor, the local coordinates (18) are
constant.
Now, in order to express the position of body M (Figure 2) of the transducer along
its slider G1 − G2 , the relative position of the measuring point D with respect to the
slider origin G1 is computed as
~ (20)
SD = G1D = S D − SG1
and the projection of vector (20) along the slider is computed as
~ T
q = G1 D ′ = S D e G (21)
where e G is the constant unit vector defined in the direction of positive measurement
along the slider.
The position of body M along the slider is then given by
′ ′ ′
2 (22)
S D = G1 M = G1 D − MD = q − sign(q ) lD − DD
2
= q − sign(q) lD − S D S D + q
2 T 2
being lD the constant length of the rod. Finally, the corresponding measure at the
transducer is
(23)
dD = S D − S D
0
0
where S D is a reference position for zero displacement.
2.4 Cinematic transformation from measured to generalised displacements
The actual displacements and rotation at the CM will differ from the desired ones and
this is due to geometry and control errors and to the flexibility of the floor. In order to
get an estimate of the actual generalised displacements, the measures given by all the
control displacement transducers may be exploited. Since the obtained relations be-
tween generalised and transducer displacements are non-linear and cannot easily be in-
verted in closed form, the solution is achieved through a Newton-Raphson iteration
procedure starting from a first estimate of the generalised displacements, e.g.,
d EST = 0 (24)
160
Then, the non-linear equations giving the associated transducer displacements d D

are applied by substituting d by d EST into equation (15) and applying formulae
(17) to (23)
d DEST = d D (d EST ) (25)
Now, the difference between this estimate and the measured transducer displace-
ments d D is used to provide an new estimate of the generalised displacements
(
d EST ← J −1 d − d EST + d EST
D D ) (26)
where J is the Jacobian matrix
∂d D
J= (27)
∂d d EST
computed at d EST .
Having into account expression (22), every single row of J can be obtained as
∂d D ⎡ ∂d D ⎤ ⎡ ∂S D ⎤ ⎡ ∂GD ′ ∂ MD ′ ⎤ ⎡ ∂S D ⎤ ⎡ T qeGT − S D T ⎤ ⎡1 0 ∂TθC ⎤
=⎢ ⎥ =⎢ − ⎥ = ⎢e G − ⎥⎢ Sˆ D ⎥
∂d ⎣ ∂S D ⎦ ⎢⎣ ∂d ⎥⎦ ⎣ ∂S D ∂S D ⎦ ⎢⎣ ∂d ⎥⎦ ⎣ MD ′ ⎦ ⎣ 0 1 ∂θ C ⎦
(28)
If the number of control transducers on the floor exceeds 3, equation (25) must be
solved in a least squares sense, in which case the inverse of J in (26) is replaced by
the pseudo-inverse
−1 (29)
⎡ T ⎤ T
psinv (J) = ⎣ J J ⎦ J
Then, steps (25) and (26) are iteratively repeated until a specified tolerance is
reached.
2.5 Static transformation from actuator to generalised forces
In the PsD, the restoring forces are experimentally obtained from the specimen. Once
the prescribed displacements are imposed, the acting axial force at every actuator is
measured by its load cell. However, in order to express these forces as resultant gener-
alised forces at the CoM of the floor, a static transformation is needed. Since the ends
of the actuator are pin-jointed, it is assumed that it acts with a purely linear force along
the line PR (Figure 3) connecting the ends of the actuator. Starting from the load-cell
measure rP of this force and assuming that the current position of the floor CoM is
known, the global position of the loading point P is obtained as
⎡x ⎤ ⎡x ⎤
S P = ⎢ P ⎥ = ⎢ C ⎥ + TθC Sˆ P (30)
⎣ y P ⎦ ⎣ yC ⎦
where TθC is given by equation
(19). Similarly to expression
161
(18), Sˆ P contains the coordinates of point P in the local reference system to the floor.
Then, the global components of the piston force are computed as
p P = rP e P (31)
where e P is a unit vector in the direction of PR . Now, the floor generalised restoring
forces (4) are obtained by summing up the effects of all pistons acting on the floor
r= Tp ∑
P
P P
(32)
where
⎡ 1 0⎤
TP = ⎢ 0 1⎥
(33)
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ − y P xP ⎥⎦
P rP
R
REACTION
WALL
ŷ T θ Sˆ P
x̂
rx CM
rθ
SP
y
SC ry
Figure 3. Force applied by the actuator

2.6 Optimal distribution of piston loads
When using a number of actuators larger than the number of DoFs at a floor, it is con-
venient to maintain an acceptable distribution of loads among all the pistons. This can
be done by implementing an algorithm capable of optimising the distribution of piston
loads for a known set of generalised floor loads. Even distribution of forces is also de-
sirable because it leads to a better approximation of the distributed inertial forces of a
real dynamic event.
For our purposes, piston forces will be defined as ‘optimal’ if statically equivalent
to the specified generalised loads and while minimising a penalty function that be-
comes infinite when any piston force reaches its working limit. The adopted expression
for the penalty function is
162
1
f (rP ) = ∑ (34)
M P − rP
2 2
P
where M P is the working limit of the absolute value of the piston load rP . Clearly,
minimising the function (34) will guarantee that all piston loads are kept far from their
limit. Using expressions (31) and (32), the conditions of static equivalence of the pis-
ton loads with the known set of generalised loads give a constraint on the minimisation
problem which can be written in the vector form
P ∑
g (r ) = T e r − r = 0
P
P P P
(35)
where r is the known set of generalised forces (4). The constrained minimisation
problem is then
⎧ f (rP ) minimum
⎨ (36)
⎩ g (rP ) = 0
By introducing a set of Lagrange multipliers associated to the constraint equations,
it can be restated in unconstrained form, leading now to the stationarity condition
∂h
=0 (37)
∂x
of the augmented functional
h ( x ) = f (rP ) + g T (rP ) λ (38)
The solution vector
⎡r ⎤
x = ⎢ P⎥ (39)
⎣λ⎦
contains as unknowns the piston loads and Lagrange multipliers
λ = [λ1 λ2 λ3 ]T (40)
The system
(37) may also be written as
A(x) = 0 (41)
where
⎡⎡ ⎤ ⎤
⎢⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢⎢ 2 rP ⎥ T ⎥
+R λ
⎢⎢ P
(
A(x) = ⎢ ⎢ M 2 − r 2 2 ⎥
P
⎥
) ⎥
⎥
(42)
⎢⎣ ⎦ ⎥
⎢⎣ RrP − r ⎥⎦
and, from expression (35),
R = [… TPe P …] (43)
163
Since the obtained equations (41) are not linear, their solution may be afforded by
the Newton-Raphson method in a similar way as it was done for obtaining the general-
ised displacements. Thus, starting from an initial estimate x EST of the unknowns,
every iteration would consist in computing
B EST = A x EST ( ) (44)
from formula (42) and updating the estimated optimum parameters by doing
x EST ← J −1 (0 − B EST ) + x EST (45)
where the Jacobian matrix is now
⎡ 0 ⎤
⎢ 2 M P + 6rP
2 2 ⎥
⎢ RT ⎥
∂A
⎢ (M P
2
− rP )
2 3
⎥
J= = ⎢0 ⎥ (46)
∂x x EST ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ R 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
2.7 Piston internal displacements
A further step for indirectly imposing a desired load at the redundant pistons men-
tioned at the preceding subsection is the calculation of the displacement at their inter-
nal transducer. This is because using that internal displacement as feedback leads to a
stable control at these redundant actuators.
Every actuator has an internal displacement transducer whose measure will be
called d P and represents the excursion of the piston. This displacement is a function of
the floor generalised displacements d . Once the position of the CM (16) is known and
the position S P of the point P (Figure 3) of attachment of the piston to the floor is cal-
culated by expression
(30), the current length of the piston is
SP = (SP − SPR ) (SP − SPR )
T (47)
and the internal displacement is

(48)
dP = S P − S P
0
0
where S P is the reference length and a positive sign of d P means a reduction of the
actuator length.
2.8 Marching procedure
The application of the described time integration method to the 3-DoF-per-floor model
was done by the following experimental step-by-step procedure. The algorithm starts
164
from known initial values D1 , V1 , A1 and the operations are organised in the following
stages:
Stage 0) Let n = 0 .
Stage 1) Transform the generalised displacements into target displacements d D at
the control transducers
(d )TARGET = d D
D n +1 D ( n +1 ) (49)
computed from expression (23).
Stage 2) Send these target displacements (49) to the controllers which impose them
to the specimen by performing a ramp from the previous position.
Stage 4) Measure the new displacements ( d D ) n+1 and restoring loads ( rP ) n+1 at
MEAS
the controllers, rP being the forces applied by the pistons.

Stage 5) From the measured control displacements, estimate the generalised dis-
placements on each floor
MEAS
(
D n +1 = D ( d D ) n +1
MEAS
) (50)
using the iterative least-squares solution (23).

Stage 6) From the measured piston forces, compute the new generalised restoring
forces
(
R n +1 = R ( rP )n +1 , D n +1
MEAS
) (51)
using the transformation formulae (32).

Stage 7) If n > 1 , compute the new accelerations
A n +1 = A n +1 ( Fn +1 , R n +1 , Vn , A n ) (52)
using expression (14).

Stage 3) Let n ← n + 1 .
Stage 8) Predict the generalised displacement at the next time increment
D n +1 = Dn +1 (Dn , Vn , A n ) (53)
using the finite-difference approximation (11) of the integration algorithm.
Stage 9) Go back to stage 1) until reaching the final time.
2.9 Control strategy
Let us assume that PID controllers are used and that, at each floor, three actuators are
controlled using as feedback a respective displacement transducer on the structure. In
that case, there are for us, in principle, three options in the choice of the feedback
transducer to control the remaining redundant actuators: a) the aligned displacement
transducer on the structure (as for the other three actuators), b) the actuator load cell
force or, c) the actuator internal displacement transducer.
The first option is not practicable in general because the control system becomes
unstable even for very low controller gains because of the high stiffness of the floor
165
slab in comparison with the one of the pistons. The second option may lead to a stable
control system, but, usually, force control strategies result in poor accuracy. It could be
acceptable for a cyclic test, but not for a PsD test in which relatively small control er-
rors may result in a large distortion of the integrated response (Shing, 1987, Molina,
2002).
The third option may give at the same time an accurate and stable control system
thanks of being a displacement control strategy, as in the first option, but associated to
a transducer which sees a more flexible subsystem. In fact, the displacements measured
by the internal transducer of the actuator are considerably larger than those coming
from the flexibility of the floor slabs since they comprise also the deformation of the
reaction wall and actuator attachments. Thus, we have adopted the actuator internal
transducers as feedbacks for the redundant pistons. In practice, the computed target for
the redundant pistons is slightly adjusted at every integration step in order to control
the distribution of loads on the floor at the same time. So, instead of using expression
(49), their target is computed as
(d )TARGET = d D + d P
P n +1 P ( n +1 ) ( ) n +1
(54)
where the first term on the right-hand side is the theoretical elongation of the piston
(48) and the second one is a correction introduced in order to modify the force. The lat-
ter is updated at every time step in the cumulative form
(
r OPTIMUM − r MEASURED ) (55)
(d )
P
n +1
( )
= dP
n
+
P
KP
P n
where the term added to the previous correction is the difference between the com-
puted optimum force (45) of the piston and the measured one at the former step, di-
vided by a stiffness parameter K P empirically selected. In general terms, the smaller
the parameter, the faster is the convergence of the force to the optimum value. How-
ever, using too small a value may result in instability, which would make the force to
oscillate out of control in very few steps.
2.10 Hardware set-up
The servo-control units used were MOOG actuators with ±0.5 m stroke and load ca-
pacity of 0.5 MN. The control displacement transducers on the structure were optical
HEIDENHAIN sensors with a stroke of ±0.5 m and a 2 µm resolution. Every actuator
was equipped with a load cell, a TEMPOSONICS internal displacement transducer and
a PID controller based on a MSM486DX CPU operating the digital control loop at a
sampling period of 2 ms. The four controllers for the four pistons of each floor are
governed by a powerful master CPU which is able to transmit and receive the control-
lers signals at real time (every 2 ms) through a high-speed communication channel
based on dual port RAM boards. The three master units for the three floors have a
common clock signal for the 2 ms interrupt.
This master controller units are programmed in C and have been designed to be able
to apply complex algorithms in which the signals of several actuators are combined in
166
real time. The sampling period of 2 ms has shown to be fast enough for stable digital
control of structural specimens by hydraulic jacks but could be too short for cases in
which the computations for those algorithms may be cumbersome. That means that this
hardware may permit the implementation of a PsD test with three DoFs per floor on a
real time continuous basis only if the algorithm computations for each floor at every
step can be performed in less than 2 ms.
Figure 4. Controller set-up for the PsD tests.
For this classic implementation of the PsD method, all the master units were con-
nected to a Windows workstation by means of ETHERNET. On such workstation, an
application developed at ELSA and called STEPTEST executed the PsD test. This ap-
plication is written in interpreted language (MATLAB) and implements the described
model and marching procedure with interactive capabilities for monitoring and control-
ling the test (Figure 4).
3 PERFORMED TESTS
Within project SPEAR, a full-size RC building has been tested at ELSA. The tested
mock-up is representative of non-seismic construction of the 60-70’s in southern Euro-
pean countries, irregularities in plan and detailing included (Negro, 2005). The struc-
ture is a simplification of an actual Greek three-storey building and was designed for
gravity loads alone using the Greek design code applied from 1954 to 1995. As seen in
Figure 5, it has a doubly non symmetric plan configuration, but it is regular in eleva-
167
tion. It is made of three 2-bay frames spanning from 3 to 6 m in each direction with a
storey height of 3 m.
For practical reasons, the specimen was built outside of the laboratory, starting from
a thick RC base slab from which the ground columns were anchored. Afterwards, this
base was made roll over PVC rolls (Figure 6) in order to transport the built specimen
up to its final position on the strong floor of the laboratory, where it was clamped.
As shown in Figure 1, for the bidirectional testing of the structure, four actuators
with four associated control displacement transducers were used. In principle, these ac-
tuators were connected to the floor in positions not too close to the structural joints.
Additional RC stiffeners were created in the floor slabs (Figure 6) in order to properly
distribute the local force applied by the pistons. The clamping of the piston attach-
ments included post-tensioning bars. The piston body was supported by the reaction
wall or a supplementary reaction structure while the control displacement transducers
were fixed on unloaded reference frames (Figure 7).
Figure 5. Plan and 3D views of the SPEAR RC building specimen
Apart from the load cells and control displacement transducers, additional instru-
mentation was installed on the specimen. Damage was expected mostly on top and bot-
tom of the columns of the first two stories. Accordingly, clinometers were installed at
the columns on up to three levels of each one. Additionally, some potentiometer exten-
simeters were also installed on some localised areas. For the first time at ELSA, photo-
grammetry techniques were applied to a bidirectional test and, at two locations, a cou-
ple of cameras were used in order to record the stereo images and estimate the
bidimensional displacements of marked targets.
The CM, total mass and moment of inertia for the PsD equations were obtained
from the theoretical mass distribution for the seismic assessment of the building ac-
cording to Eurocode 8. Since the mass of the model was lower than that, additional wa-
ter containers (Figure 7) were set on the floors of the specimen in the laboratory in or-
der to have realistic gravity loads in the members. The input signals for the test were
semi-artificial records modulated consistently with Eurocode 8. After some preliminary
small tests to verify the testing system and tune the control parameters, two big PsD
168
tests were performed for peak ground acceleration of up to 0.20 g, on the original
specimen, and 0.30 g on the two retrofitted configurations. For each test, the intensity
of the excitation was equal in the horizontal x and y components.
Details on the obtained response and damage at the different configurations are
given by Negro (2005) and Mola (2004). During the different tests, the obtained
maximum displacements at the third floor were in the order of 200 mm in the “x”
(weak) direction, 150 mm in the “y” direction and 23 mrad of torsion. This level of tor-
sion was higher than the predicted one using regulated methods.
The tests were performed with very low experimental errors. For example, the er-
rors produced at the controller loops were always lower than 0.1 mm and those verified
in the generalised displacement at the CM were lower than 0.3 mm. The latter are
mostly due to the existing flexibility of the floors since three structural displacements
were used for the control while all four of them entered in the estimation of the gener-
alised displacement. An overall way to assess the quality of a PsD test in relation to the
existing control errors is through the computation of the energy of error (Molina,
2002), which amounted some 50 J, in comparison to the total absorbed energy in the
structure, which was around 130 kJ for the second test for example. A way to look
more in detail at the effects of the control errors on each mode consists of the identifi-
cation of the eigen frequency and damping from the measured forces and either the
measured and the reference displacements (Molina, 2002). For example, for the 0.20 g
test on the original specimen, the identified values for the first three modes at different
time instants are shown in Figure 8. The results for the other estimated six modes are
not much worse. The conclusion is that the control errors verified during the test have
not affected at all these clue parameters for the response of the structure.
4 CONCLUSIONS
In the framework of the activity of the SPEAR research project, three rounds of bi-
directional PsD tests were carried out on a full-scale three-storey plan-wise irregular
RC frame structure. The description of the applied PsD technique has been the object
of this paper.
The technique considers three DoF per floor and includes rigorous geometrically
non-linear transformation of coordinates for the actuator forces and displacements
transducers attached to the floors. It also allows for using more than three pistons and
displacements transducers per floor, in which case it guarantees and even distribution
of piston forces.
The performed tests have been quite successful from the point of view of the low
experimental errors verified. The applied methodology showed to be appropriate for
large-displacement bidirectional testing of full scale specimens. The results of these
tests are of high relevance for understanding the torsional response of unsymmetric
buildings.
169
Figure 6. Transportation of the building specimen inside of ELSA.
5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Project SPEAR has been funded by the European Commission under the
“Competitive and Sustainable Growth” Programme, Contract N. G6RD-2001-00525.
Access to the experimental facility took place by means of the EC contract
ECOLEADER N. HPRI-1999-00059.
A group of European partners have taken part in the SPEAR Project together with
the ELSA Laboratory: the University of Patras (Greece), the Imperial College of Lon-
don, the University of Ljubljana (Slovenia), the Universities of Rome and Pavia (Italy),
the National Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering (LNEC) of Lisbon, the Higher
Technical Institute of Nicosia and EQE International (London). The project is being
co-ordinated by the ELSA Laboratory, whereas the University of Patras holds the ad-
ministrative co-ordination. Overseas partnerships were also created with the Mid-
America Earthquake (MAE) Centre of Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, the Building Re-
search Institute (BRI) of Tsukuba (Japan), the Technical University of Tokyo and the
Middle-East Technical University of Ankara.
Bi-directional pseudodynamic testing on a full-scale complete building is a highly
innovative and challenging experiment, and whenever doing experimental work, many
difficulties can be encountered. In the tests described in this paper, difficulties were
much more severe than expected: the work, which was a common effort of the whole
170
ELSA staff, was made possible by the expertise, dedication, as well as forbearance and
friendship of all staff.
Figure 7. View of the structure ready for the PsD tests.
6 REFERENCES
Magonette, G., Pegon, P., Molina, F. J., Buchet, Ph., 1998, Development of fast continuous
substructuring tests, Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference on Structural Control.
Mola, E., Negro, P., Pinto, A. V., 2004, Evaluation of current approaches to the analysis and
design of multi-storey torsionally unbalanced frames, Proceedings of the 13th World Con-
ference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Paper N. 3304.
Molina, F.J., Verzelletti, G., Magonette, G., Buchet, Ph., Geradin, M., 1999, Bi-directional
pseudodynamic test of a full-size three-storey building, Earthquake Engineering and Struc-
tural Dynamics, 28, 1541-1566.
Molina, J., Magonette, G., Pegon, P., 2002, Assessment of systematic experimental errors in
pseudodynamic tests, Proc. of 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, El-
sevier Science , Paper 525.
Negro, P., Mola, E., 2005, Full scale PsD testing of the torsionally unbalanced SPEAR struc-
ture in the ‘as-built’ and retrofitted configurations, SPEAR Workshop, EC-JRC Ispra, Italy.
Shing, P. B., Mahin, S. A., 1987, Cumulative experimental errors in pseudo-dynamic tests,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 15, 409-424.
Takanashi, K., Nakashima, M., 1986, A State of the Art: Japanese Activities on on-Line Com-
puter Test Control Method, Report of the Institute of Industrial Science 32, 3, University of
Tokyo.
171
Figure 8. Identified frequencies and damping ratios from PsD results.
172
Pre- and post-test mathematical modelling of the SPEAR
building
P.Fajfar1, M.Dolšek1, D.Marušić1, A.Stratan2
1
Univ. of Ljubljana, Slovenia
2
Technical Univ. of Timisoara, Romania, formerly visiting researcher at the Univ. of Ljubljana
ABSTRACT: Pre- and post-test analyses of structural response of the SPEAR building
were performed, aimed at leading the test preparation and execution as well as studying
the mathematical modelling. In the paper the results of initial parametric studies, of the
blind pre-test predictions and of the post-test analysis are summarized. In all studies a
simple mathematical model with one-component member models with concentrated
plasticity was employed. The pre-test analyses were performed with the CANNY pro-
gram. After the test results became available, the mathematical model was improved
using an approach based on a displacement - controlled analysis. Basically, the same
mathematical model as in pre-test analyses was used, only the values of some parame-
ters have been changed. The OpenSees program was employed. A good agreement be-
tween test and numerical results was obtained. The results prove that relatively simple
mathematical models are able to adequately simulate the detailed seismic response of
reinforced concrete frame structures to a known ground motion, provided that the input
parameters are properly determined.
1 INTRODUCTION
Within the European research project SPEAR (Seismic performance assessment and
rehabilitation of existing buildings), a real-size asymmetric three-storey reinforced
concrete (RC) frame building was tested pseudo-dynamicaly in full-scale. The struc-
ture is referred in the following as the SPEAR building. Several partners in the project
and other researchers have performed blind pre-test analyses and/or post-test analyses.
A range of different modelling options and computer programs were explored. The
wealth of experimental and numerical data related to the SPEAR building represents
very valuable material for studying the mathematical modelling of existing RC build-
ings. In this paper only the results of analyses performed at the University of Ljubljana
are discussed. Intentionally, only simple modelling options have been used, which can
be readily performed with existing software in advanced design offices. In all studies,
the mathematical model with one-component member models, composed of an elastic
beam and two inelastic rotational springs, was employed. Only in initial parametric
studies other models were also used. The pre-test and post-test analyses were per-
formed with the CANNY (Li 2002) and OpenSees program (PEER 1999), respectively.
In the paper the results of initial parametric studies, of the blind pre-test predictions
and of the post-test analysis are summarized.
173
2 DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDING
Detailed description of the building is provided elsewhere in this monograph. Here

only a 3D view and the plan with the denotation of columns are presented (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Overview and plan of the SPEAR building. Note that the positive sense of axes is
different in the pre- and post-test models.
3 COMMON FEATURES OF MATHEMATICAL MODELS
In all cases, the idealisation of the structure was based on elements placed at the mid-
depths of members, and connected at the nodes. Rigid diaphragms were considered at
the floor levels, due to monolithic RC slabs. Centreline dimension of elements vs. rigid
offsets was considered as one of the modelling parameters in the initial parametric
study. In the final pre-test and in the post-test analyses centreline dimensions were used
with one exception: rigid elements were used for all models at the column C6 to ac-
count for the finite dimensions of this column. Using centreline dimensions, the storey
heights were 2.75 and 3 m for the first und upper two stories, respectively. In the pre-
liminary estimation of seismic response and in the final pre-test model (Chapters 4-6),
the height of the first storey was artificially increased from 2.75 to 3.00 m in order to
take into account potential bar slippage at the column-footing interface. This artificial
increase was not applied in the post-test analyses. One element per member was used.
Beam flexural behaviour was modelled by one-component lumped plasticity ele-
ments, composed of elastic beam and two inelastic rotational hinges (defined with the
moment-rotation relationship). The plastic hinge was used for the major-axis bending
only. The element formulation was based on the assumption of the inflexion point at
the midpoint of the element. For columns flexural behaviour also a one-component
lumped plasticity model was used, with two independent plastic hinges for bending
about the two principal axes. In initial parametric studies, lumped and distributed plas-
ticity fibre models were used in addition for columns. Elastic axial, shear and torsional
response of the element was assumed, with the exception of axial behaviour of fibre
columns.
174
In all cases reported here, time-history analysis was performed. In the initial studies,
5% Rayleigh damping was used, for the first two modes of vibration. The instantane-
ous stiffness-proportional damping was applied. For the final pre-test analysis and for
the post-test analyses, zero damping, as in the pseudo-dynamic tests, was assumed. All
pre-test analyses were performed with the CANNY program. Due to the program limi-
tation, second order (P-delta) effects were not considered in these analyses. However,
they were considered in the post-test analyses, performed with OpenSees program.
Masses and mass moments of inertia differed slightly in different analyses.
4 INITIAL MATHEMATICAL MODELLING – PARAMETRIC STUDY
First, a study on the influence of modelling parameters and assumptions was made.
The structural performance was evaluated by non-linear dynamic analyses of several
structural models under a set of seven bi-directional recorded ground motions. The fol-
lowing modelling issues were addressed: column flexural behaviour (using one-
component model which neglects the M-M-N interaction and strength degradation, and
the fibre elements, accounting for these effects), rigid offsets vs. centreline dimensions
of elements, bilinear, tri-linear, and multi-linear (through fibre discretization) moment-
rotation element modelling, shape of hysteresis loops, post-yielding stiffness, beam ef-
fective width, expected vs. characteristic material strength, and evaluation of shear
strength of members and joints. A modified version of Takeda hysteresis rules was
used for flexural modelling of cyclic response of one-component models.
The parametric study has demonstrated that the displacement demands were af-
fected significantly when the global stiffness and/or strength of the structure changed.
The seismic response of the analysed structure was most influenced by the bilinear
(“yield” stiffness) vs. tri-linear element modelling and rigid offsets vs. centreline ele-
ment dimensions. On the other hand, equivalent bilinear model using effective
("cracked") stiffness showed a very good agreement with the tri-linear model. Note that
“bilinear” and “tri-linear” element modelling corresponds to the part of the moment –
rotation envelope before the potential strength degradation starts. The effect of the M-
M-N interaction and strength degradation for columns was moderate. Post-yielding
stiffness, pinching, and beam effective width had little influence on the structural re-
sponse of the investigated building. Evaluation of element and joint shear strength ac-
cording to different procedures showed important variation. However, even consider-
ing the more conservative estimates for shear strength, the imposed demands did not
exceed the shear capacities, suggesting that the brittle shear failure modes would
probably not occur in the investigated building.
Attention was paid to the dilemma if rigid offsets or centreline dimensions should
be used. In structural modelling of RC moment resisting frames often the finite dimen-
sions of beam-column joints are taken into account by considering rigid offsets for the
interconnecting beam and column elements. On the other hand, joint deformations may
be important, especially in the case of older existing frames, due to lack of joint trans-
verse reinforcement and slippage of longitudinal reinforcement. Centreline modelling
of elements may be used as a simple way to account for both the reduction of stiffness
and strength due to additional deformations in the joint regions for nonlinear structural
175
assessment of RC frames. Both options have been used in parametric studies. Consid-
eration of rigid offsets as an alternative to the centreline dimensions of elements led to
important changes in global structural strength and stiffness, as well as change of rela-
tive storey shear strengths. Thus, beside higher displacement demands of the centreline
model, there was a significant change in distribution of inter-storey drift demands
along the height of the structure. Higher demands in brittle components (element shear
forces) were another consequence of rigid offsets.
Detailed results of preliminary parametric studies can be found in (Stratan and Fa-
jfar 2002).
5 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATION OF SEISMIC RESPONSE
In the next phase of the study, an estimation of the seismic response of the structure
was made. Here only the basic data and the most important results are summarized. A
detailed description is provided in (Stratan and Fajfar 2003).
Based on the study of different parameters affecting the seismic response of the
SPEAR structure summarized in the previous chapter, two 3D structural models, which
were supposed to represent the "best-estimate" models, were considered in the next
round of analyses. The first model employed the one-component lumped-plasticity
model with tri-linear moment-rotations idealisations for both beams and columns, and
the second employed the same model for beams and distributed plasticity fibre models
for columns. Only the first model will be discussed here.
Though the one-component model does not account for some important aspects
such as strength degradation and M-M-N interaction for columns, it was chosen for its
simplicity. Preparation of input data and interpretation of results are easy and suitable
for design practice. Variants of one-component element models are well-known, and
are readily available in some commercial computer programs. To authors' experience
similar models showed adequate correlation with full-scale pseudo-dynamic tests in the
past.
The one-component model was based on expected material characteristics. Centre-
line dimensions were used for the elements to account for additional deformations not
modelled directly (bar slippage and joint shear distortion). The first storey columns
were considered the same length as the second and third story columns (3m), as the ef-
fect of strain penetration and bar slippage may equally occur at the column-footing in-
terface. Rigid elements were used only at the column C6, to account for the finite di-
mension of this member. Beam effective width was computed according to the
recommendations of Paulay and Priestley (1992). When assessing the beam flexural re-
sistance under negative moments (top reinforcement in tension), only the top slab rein-
forcement effectively anchored was considered. Takeda hysteretic behaviour was used
for the elements, without pinching.
Expected material strengths were estimated according to Priestley (1997). Concrete
was considered unconfined for establishing the stress-strain relationship. A standard
moment-curvature analysis was carried out for each element. For columns, axial force
corresponding to gravitational loading was considered. The cracking and yield curva-
tures and moments were determined by a numerical procedure. The ultimate curvature
176
was determined at the attainment of ultimate strains in concrete or steel. The equivalent
plastic hinge length was determined according to Paulay and Priestley (1992). The
moment-rotation relationship was obtained by integrating the curvature distribution
along the element length. The ultimate rotations, determined by the above approach for
columns, amounted to from 13 (column C3 with the highest axial load) to 35 mrad (a
corner column in the 3rd storey).
For dynamic analyses, two sets of earthquake records were used. The first one was a
suite of seven recorded bidirectional ground motions from Southern Europe, selected
from the European strong motion databank. They were scaled (but not fitted) to ap-
proximately match the EC8 spectra for soil type C in the constant velocity range. A
second suite of nine semi-artificial earthquake records (fitted to EC8 spectrum for soil
class C) provided within the SPEAR project were added later to provide an easier
comparison of results with other project tasks. Three intensities of ground motion were
used, corresponding to 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 g peak ground acceleration (ag). The ag value
includes the code soil coefficient, i.e. it represents the peak acceleration at the top of
the soil layer.
The main features of this “initial” model and of the final “pre-test” and “post-test”
models (described in next chapters) are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.
Although the results of numerical studies cannot be directly compared with the re-
sults of pseudo-dynamic tests due to differences in material characteristics, masses,
ground motion time-histories, damping (5% versus zero damping), and initially dam-
aged structure and sequence of tests in the case of test structure, they provide a qualita-
tive estimate of the expected seismic response and a very rough quantitative estimate of
the seismic capacity.
Table 1. Common features of all models (with one-component elements).

One-component lumped plasticity elements based on moment-rotation
Element model relationship (plastic hinge defined for uni-axial bending). Takeda’s
hysteretic rules. Elastic axial, shear and torsional behaviour.
Centreline dimensions Yes
Rigid offset at beam-column connection No, with the exception of connections to the large column
Bar slippage and joint shear distortion considered using centreline di-
Additional deformations at element inter-
mensions without rigid segments at beam-column connections (with
sections
the exception of connections to the large column)
Accounted for by reducing the yield strength of insufficiently anchored
Insufficient anchorage of bars
bars
M-M-N interaction No
Effective width Paulay and Priestley (1992)
Effective height of the 2nd and 3rd storey
3.00 m
columns
177
Table 2. Comparison of modelling assumptions.
The mean results of dynamic analyses suggested that displacement demands were
higher in the weaker X direction, and that they were different in the positive and nega-
tive Y direction. Average increase of top displacements at the flexible edge with re-
spect to the centre of mass amounted to 30% and 16% for the X and Y direction, re-
spectively. The corresponding decrease of top displacements at the stiff edge with
respect to centre of mass amounted to 15% and 10% for X and Y directions, respec-
tively. Inter-storey drift demands concentrated in the lower two storeys, but were more
uniform in the Y direction.
178
Based on the results of the study, damage to the structure was dictated by weak col-
umns and by significantly lower moment capacity under positive bending for beams.
Pullout of bottom beam reinforcement and extensive concrete spalling were dominant
failure modes. Though there was a lack of proper transverse reinforcement both in
elements and in beam-column joints, shear capacity checks indicated that neither ele-
ments nor joints were susceptible to shear failures. Column demand to capacity ratios
(DCR) were higher for columns at the flexible edges (higher demands) and for ele-
ments with higher axial loads (lower rotation capacities). The critical column was the
first storey central column (C3). Another three columns from the first storey (C1, C2,
and C4) followed closely with slightly lower DCRs. Extensive cover concrete spalling
for the C1-C4 columns was predicted at the 0.2g intensity level. Initiation of significant
global structural damage was evaluated to 0.24g. Though a similar response was ob-
tained for both suites of earthquake records, torsional response was significantly lower
in the case of the semi-artificial records. The results indicated that at the ag = 0.3 g
level the concrete in the most critical columns started to crush. Maximum displace-
ments were in the region where the pushover curve started to soften. However, at this
ground motion level, the structure was still stable.
6 FINAL PRE-TEST ANALYSIS (“PRE-TEST MODEL”)
Initial analyses of the test building were based on assumed material properties, since
the test building has not been built yet and the actual material properties were not
known. Moreover, the time-history of ground motion to be used in the tests has not
been determined yet. After a series of intermediate analyses, aimed at providing infor-
mation needed for the decision about the ground motion to be simulated during the ex-
periment, and after the test building was built, the final pre-test analyses were per-
formed using basically the same model as in the preliminary analyses.
The ground motion chosen for the test is represented by two orthogonal semi-
artificial ground motions, based on a record obtained in Hercegnovi during the 1979
Montenegro earthquake and fitted to the EC8 spectrum (type I, Soil C). Both horizontal
components and the spectrum are shown e.g. in (Negro et al. 2004). The ground mo-
tion will be denoted as HN-1. The components were applied in the -X and -Y direction
of the pre-test model (see Fig. 1). It is important to note that the selected ground mo-
tion produced much larger torsional rotations than an average record in the suite of
candidate ground motion. In Fig. 2 maximum top displacements normalised by maxi-
mum displacement in the centre of masses at the top are presented for ag = 0.3 g and
5% structural damping. In addition to the response due to HN-1 ground motion, the
mean results and standard deviation are presented for 56 ground motions and for 8
variants (the same ground motion applied in different combination of X- and Y- direc-
tions with + and - sense) of HN ground motion. In the case the HN-1 ground motion,
the displacements at the flexible edge are comparable to the mean plus sigma values.
The behaviour is typical for torsionally stiff structures: the response is governed by a
single mode, displacements increase due to torsion at the flexible side and decrease at
the stiff side. Extreme response is predominantly in one, fundamental mode. The re-
sults in Fig. 2 are shown for ground motion scaled to ag = 0.3 g.
179
X-direction Y-direction
1.4
1.2
u/uCM
1.0
+σ
HN-1
0.8 HN-mean
Mean
Stiff CM Flex. Stiff CM Flex.

Figure 2. Normalized displacements u/uCM in the horizontal plane at the top of the building
(pre-test model, ag = 0.3 g, ζ = 5%).
From the intermediate analyses, only the influence of damping is presented here. It
was studied in order to obtain a quantitative estimate of the difference between 5%
damping, used in parametric studies described in previous chapters, and zero damping,
used in pseudo-dynamic. In Fig. 3 results for 0% and 5% damping are compared.
Time-histories of storey drift in the 1st storey are plotted. Ground motion was HN-1,
scaled to 0.3 g. As expected, maximum seismic demand in the case of zero damping is
substantially larger (up to 40%) than in the case of 5% damping.
The influence of the sequence of three tests with increasing intensity (0.04 g, 0.12 g
and 0.20 g) was also studied. The results suggested that the response during the highest
ground motion was not substantially influenced by the previous ground motions.
The final pre-test model was basically the zero damped model, employed in the pre-
test estimation of seismic response (Chapter 6), adapted to the new (measured) data on
the material properties. The same properties of the concrete (Table 2) were assumed for
the whole structure. For steel, two different characteristics were used (Table 2). Com-
pared to the previous models, the reinforcement was stronger and more ductile whereas
the strength of concrete was lower. Due to better steel properties the ultimate values of
the deformation capacity of members of the new model were generally somewhat lar-
ger (ultimate rotations in columns amounted to from 14 mrad for column C3 to 40
mrad for a corner column in the 3rd storey, and the overall lateral strength was up to 8%
higher comparing to the previous model. Note, that the final pre-test model was still
not fully compatible with the test structure. There was a substantial difference in mass
moments of inertia. The initial damage of the test structure was not taken into account.
The main features of the final pre-test model are summarized in Table 2).
Based on the analysis of the pre-test model, inter alia, the following conclusions
were made: “In the case of HN-1 ground motion ag = 0.20 g should be an appropriate
intensity to be used for testing. The analyses indicate that such ground motion would
lead to damage serious enough to apply desired retrofitting techniques on the test
building in the second stage of the experiment, yet it would not cause the collapse of
any member.“ (Fajfar et al. 2003). “HN-1 ground motion normalised to ag = 0.2 g
causes substantial damage to critical columns. At ag = 0.25 g local failure (crushing of
concrete) of critical columns occurs. Critical columns are columns C1, C2 and C4,
180
which are located in the first storey at the flexible edges and carry a relatively large ax-
ial load, and column C3 with the largest axial stress.” (Marušić and Fajfar 2003).
Figure 3. Storey drift time-history for the 1st storey (average of all columns at the floor, ξ = 0%
and 5%; HN-1, ag = 0.3 g.
7 SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
Tests and test results are described in details elsewhere (Negro et al. 2004, Jeong and
Elnashai 2005). Here only the main results, important for the comparisons with analy-
ses are summarized.
In the first phase of pseudo-dynamic testing, three tests were performed in se-
quence. Horizontal loading was applied in both horizontal directions simultaneously.
The same acceleration time-histories were used in all three tests, but they were differ-
ently scaled. Before the tests started, the structure was damaged during transportation
to the final position in the lab. The analyses made by the partners (see the detailed
study performed by Jeong and Elnashai 2005) suggested that the initial structural dam-
age only slightly influences the structural response at higher ground motion intensities.
It is clear, however, that the initial conditions have been substantially changed com-
pared to »uncracked« structure and that the results of the first small intensity test (ag =
0.02 g), intended to simulate the elastic response, cannot be compared with the results
of elastic analyses of initially undamaged structure. Moreover, the initial damage has
most probably influenced the detailed behaviour.
The intensity, expected to cause significant damage, without going beyond the repa-
rability stage, was set to ag = 0.15 g, as a compromise between different predictions of
different project partners. However, only minor damage occured at this intensity level.
Minor cracks were concentrated mainly at the top of the columns and in the beams in-
tersecting into column C6. No damage was visible at the bottom of columns The
maximum top displacements in CM were about 70 and 50 mm in the X and Y direc-
tion, respectively, and the maximum rotation at the top was about 12 mrad. The most
affected storey was the 2nd storey (Negro et al. 2004).
Due to small damage, it was decided to continue with the test sequence and perform
a test with ag = 0.20 g. The maximum top displacements in CM were about 100 mm in
both X and Y direction, and the maximum rotation at the top was about 20 mrad.
Again, the 2nd storey was the most affected storey. Maximum interstorey drifts in the
181
2nd storey in CM amounted to about 55 and 45 mm in X and Y direction, respectively.

Due to torsional influence the drifts at the flexible edges increased to about 70 cm (i.e.
about 2.8% of the clear storey height) in both directions (columns C1, C2 and C5 in X
direction and columns C4 and C7 in Y direction). The damage was concentrated
mainly in the columns, more at the top than at the bottom and more in the second than
in the first storey. The column C3 (with the highest axial load), suffered the most for
extended spalling at the top. The columns at the flexible edges exhibited a significant
level of spalling and cracking at the top. Some damage was detected in the beams and
floor slabs connected to the strong column C6. (Negro et al. 2004).
8 EVALUATION OF THE PREDICTIONS BY THE PRE-TEST MODEL
A comparison of results obtained by the pre-test model and in two tests is shown in
Figs 4 and 5. The results of the pre-test model for ag = 0.2 g do not take into account
the sequence of the loading. For ag = 0.15 g, a good correlation of top displacement
histories can be observed. The correlation of top rotations is poor, also due to substan-
tial underestimation of the mass moments of inertia in the pre-test model. Envelopes
(Fig. 5) of storey drifts show that the predicted drifts in the first storey were overesti-
mated in both directions, while in the second storey they were underestimated in Y-
direction. This disagreement might be to a large extent attributed to the artificially in-
creased height of the first storey in the pre-test model. The correlation for ag = 0.2 g is
poor (Fig. 4).
The tests have not provided pushover curves, therefore the pre-test base shear – top
displacement relations are compared with the results of the more accurate post-test
model (Fig. 6). The distribution of lateral loading was based on the fundamental load
shape in the direction under consideration. The main difference between the pre- and
post-test results is in strength, which is largely overestimated in the pre-test model. On
the other hand, the prediction of the global stiffness was fair. Based on the pushover
curves in Fig. 6 and considering the maximum top displacements measured during the
two tests, fair and poor correlations for 0.15 g and 0.20 g tests, respectively, can be
easily explained. Since only limited plastification occurred during the 0.15g test, the
response was controlled mainly by stiffness. On the other hand, difference in strength
was decisive for the disagreements in the case of the 0.20 g test. The fact, that the
strength degradation and the P-∆ effect were not included in the pre-test model, did not
substantially influence the response. Large torsional amplifications were predicted and
this prediction was confirmed in tests. For the assessment of the structural behaviour it
is necessary to compare demand and capacity. The predicted capacity in terms of drift
was based on semi-empirical approach for determination of the ultimate rotation capac-
ity with plastic hinge according to Paulay and Priestley (1992). Unconfined concrete
was assumed. The test results have demonstrated that the predicted capacity was un-
derestimated.
It is interesting that the suggested test intensity (0.20 g) was proved to be correct.
This might be interpreted as a good fortune, because both demand and capacity were
underestimated. However, it may be explained also by the robustness of the estimates
of the global seismic structural response.
182
In the case of the initial small intensity (0.02 g) test it is not possible to compare the
test and analytical results due initial damage of the test structure, which very substan-
tially influences the response in the case of a week ground motion.
Figure 4: Top displacements and rotations at CM obtained by the pre-test model and test results
for ag = 0.15 g and ag = 0.2 g.
Figure 5: Envelopes of storey drifts at CM obtained by the pre-test model and test results for ag
= 0.15 g.
183
Figure 6. Pushover curves for pre- and post-test models. Maximum values measured in tests at
CM are indicated. Positive sense of axes corresponds to the post-test model (Fig. 1).
9 POST-TEST MODEL
The comparison of the pre-test predictions and test results suggests that the pre-test
model is not capable to simulate the detailed seismic behaviour of the test structure
properly. An improved mathematical model was prepared by employing the test re-
sults.
A simple trial and error approach, based on blind changing of structural parameters
is very time consuming and, because of a large number of parameters involved, does
not necessarily lead to an appropriate model. In our study, we employed the approach
based on displacement-controlled analysis, developed by Dolšek and Fajfar (2002).
Using this approach, it was possible to detect that the global strength and the energy
dissipation capacity of the pre-test model were substantially overestimated. Further-
more, based on the observation that the second storey of the test structure was more
damaged than the first one, it could be concluded that the artificial increase of the
length of the columns at the bottom of the first storey was not realistic. Test results also
suggested that the damage was larger at the top than at the bottom of the columns. A
similar observation was made and explained by Calvi et al. (2002).
The above conclusions represented the guidelines for the modification of parame-
ters employed in the pre-test model. Since a displacement-controlled analysis option
has not been implemented in the CANNY program, we choose the OpenSees program
for the post-test analyses. The post-test model consists of zero-length section elements
with hysteretic uniaxial material and elastic beam-column elements. The former ele-
ments represent plastic hinges at both ends of beams and columns, while the later ele-
ments model the elastic part in between of plastic hinges. As an additional advantage
of changing the program it was possible to include the strength degradation in the en-
velope of the element moment - rotation relation and the P-∆ effect at the global level.
Although these features are substantial for analyses at larger intensities (as a part of
other investigations), they did not exhibit an important influence on the response at the
184
ground motion intensities used in the tests. In order to allow the strength degradation, a
bilinear relationship was used in the first part of the moment – rotation relationship
(before the maximum moment is reached). (The hysteretic material in OpenSees is lim-
ited to tri-linear moment – rotation envelope). An effective initial stiffness was em-
ployed, as suggested by initial parametric studies (Chapter 4). In spite of this simplifi-
cation, we were able to simulate the structural response well, as demonstrated in
Chapter 10. However, it was difficult to fit the parameters in such a way that a good
simulation was obtained for both tests (0.15 g and 0.20 g). It is obvious that a tri-linear
envelope, taking into account a change in stiffness after the cracking of the concrete, is
better suited for detailed simulations than a bilinear with an effective initial stiffness.
Based on the above observations and restrains, the following modifications of the
pre-test model were made:
1. The height of the first storey columns was reduced from 3.00 to 2.75.
2. The overall strength was reduced by assuming that the anchorage of reinforcement
bars is insufficient not only in beams (as assumed in the pre-test model), but also at
the top of the columns. Insufficient anchorage of bars was taken into account by
reducing the yield strength of insufficiently anchored bars according to the proce-
dure suggested in FEMA 356 (2000).
3. New moment - rotation envelopes (Fig. 7) were determined for elements. The yield
moment My and the maximum moment Mmax were determined from the cross-
section analysis, like in the case of the pre-test models. The effective yield rotation
was calculated by the formula θy = (MyL)/(6EIef), where L is the length/height of a
beam/column, E is the modulus of elasticity, and Ief is the effective moment of in-
ertia of the element. The values of Ief/I, where I is the moment of inertia of the un-
cracked section, were determined based on observations made by comparing
analysis with low intensity (ag = 0.02 g) test and a trial and error procedure. The
values for all beams amounted to 0.5, whereas the values for columns decreased
from the bottom to the top and amounted to about 0.47, 0.44 and 0.41 for the 1st,
2nd and 3rd storey, respectively. The rotations θmax and θu, (the later corresponds to
20% drop of the strength and is considered representative for the Near Collapse
limit state), were estimated by the CAE method (Peruš et al. 2005), using experi-
mental data bases for columns. The θu values for the critical columns, e.g. for col-
umn C2 amounted from 35 (first storey) to 47 mrad (top storey) and for column C3
from 27 to 39 mrad for first and top storey, respectively. Note that these values are
larger than the capacities used in the pre-test analyses.
4. The energy dissipation capacity was reduced by a further decrease (compared to
the pre-test model) of the unloading stiffness in the element hysteretic rules.
5. The strength of the concrete, masses and mass moments of inertia were adjusted to
the measured values and values used in the test. Only the change of mass moments
of inertia was substantial.
6. For the column C6, the yield rotation was increased by a factor of 15 at the outer
side at the bottom of the 1st storey and at the inner side at the top of the 2nd storey
because of substantial initial cracks at these two sections.
185
Note that fine tuning of some parameters was made for changes 3, 4, and 6, using a
trial and error procedure, combined with the displacement-controlled analysis. An
overview of the features of the post-test model is provided in Table 2.
Figure 7. The moment - rotation envelopes for the post-test model.
10 RESULTS OF POST-TEST ANALYSES AND COMPARISON WITH TEST

RESULTS
Selected results of analyses performed with the post-test model and comparison with
test results are shown in Figs 8-10. The analyses were performed in a sequence. First,
ground motion was scaled to ag = 0.15 g and than to ag = 0.2 g. The results include
time-histories of top displacements and rotations in CM (Fig. 8), and envelopes of sto-
rey drifts in CM (Fig. 9) and in the column at the flexible corner C2 (Fig. 10). All re-
sults are shown for both ground motion intensities. More data, including input file and
detailed results for the described model and some other slightly different models, are
provided in post-test report by Dolšek and Fajfar (2005).
A fair correlation of all computed and measured results can be observed. The aim of
our post-test analysis was to discover the main inaccuracies in the pre-test model and to
develop an improved model which can properly simulate the seismic response of the
test structure. An additional aim was to prove that simple mathematical models are able
to describe the main features of non-linear structural response provided that proper
values of input parameters are employed. By further fine tuning of parameters it would
be possible to obtain even a better correlation, but we see no sense in such efforts. A
relatively simple improvement of the element model, which would facilitate the model-
ling and improve some results, represents a tri-linear initial part of the moment – rota-
tion relation, taking into account pre- and post-crack stiffness.
11 CONCLUSIONS
Mathematical modelling of existing RC frame structures, not designed for earthquake

loading, proved to be a difficult task. Slippage of reinforcement bars due to insufficient
anchorage and joint shear distortion will probably occur in the case of a severe ground
motion and these phenomena should be properly taken into account in a mathematical
model. In the case of the investigated building, the blind pre-test predictions were only
partially successful in spite of known ground motion, which in the real world repre-
186
sents the major source of uncertainty. Knowing the structural response during the tests,
it was possible to obtain a good simulation of the test results by adapting some parame-
ters of the simple pre-test model, based on one-component member models with con-
centrated plasticity. The simple model, appropriate for practical applications, proved to
be robust and efficient. Engineering judgement, needed in mathematical modelling of
complex existing RC structures, can be easily exercised. The typical computing time
for one time-history analysis amounted to about 2 minutes on a PC with Intel Pentium
4 processor (3.0 GHz, 512MB RAM).
Figure 8: Top displacements and rotations at CM obtained by the post-test model and test re-
sults for ag = 0.15 g and ag = 0.2 g.
Figure 9: Envelopes of storey drifts at CM obtained by the post-test model and test results for
ag = 0.15 g and ag = 0.2 g.
187
Figure 10: Envelopes of storey drifts at C2 obtained by the post-test model and test results for
ag = 0.15 g and ag = 0.2 g.
12 REFERENCES
Calvi, G.M., Magenes, G., Pampanin, S., 2002. Relevance of beam-column joint damage and
collapse in RC frame assessment. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 6(1): 75-100.
Dolšek, M., Fajfar, P. 2002. Mathematical modelling of an infilled RC frame structure based on
the results of pseudo-dynamic tests. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.31: 1215-1230.
Dolšek, M., Fajfar, P. 2005. Post-test analyses of the SPEAR test building, University of Ljubl-
jana.
Fajfar, P. Dolšek, M. Marušić, D. Stratan, A. Peruš, I. Lapajne, J. 2003. SPEAR Annual Report
for the period September 2002 – August 2003, University of Ljubljana.
FEMA 356, 2000. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington (DC).
Jeong, S.-H., Elnashai, A. 2005. Analytical assessment of the seismic performance of an irregu-
lar RC frame for full-scale 3D pseudo-dynamic testing, Part I: analytical model verification.
Journal of Earthquake Engineering 9(1): 95-128.
Jeong, S.-H., Elnashai, A. 2005. Analytical assessment of the seismic performance of an irregu-
lar RC frame for full-scale 3D pseudo-dynamic testing, Part II: Condition assessment and
test development. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 9(2): 265-284.
Li, K.N., 2002. 3-Dimensional nonlinear static and dynamic structural analysis computer pro-
gram. CANNY Consultants Pte Ltd., Singapore.
Marušić, D., Fajfar, P., 2003. Final pre-test analysis of the SPEAR test building, University of
Ljubljana.
Negro, P., Mola, E., Molina, F.J., Magonette, G.E., 2004. Full-scale testing of a torsionally un-
balanced three-storey non-seismic RC frame. Proceedings 13WCEE, paper 968.
Paulay, T., Priestley, M.J.N., 1992. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Build-
ings, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
PEER 1999. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees), Pacific Earth-
quake Eng. Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, http://opensees.berkeley.edu/
Peruš, I., Poljanšek K., Fajfar P. 2005. Flexural deformation capacity of rectangular RC col-
umns determined by the CAE method. Paper in preparation.
Priestley, M.J.N., 1997. Displacement-Based Seismic Assessment of Reinforced Concrete
Buildings, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1(1): 157-192
Stratan, A., Fajfar, P. 2002. Influence of modelling assumptions and analysis procedure on the
seismic evaluation of reinforced concrete GLD frames, University of Ljubljana.
Stratan, A., Fajfar, P. 2003. Seismic assessment of the SPEAR test structure, University of
Ljubljana.
188
Analytical assessment of a 3D full scale RC building test
S.-H. Jeong
Research Assistant, Civil Engineering Department, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
A.S. Elnashai
Willett Professor, Civil Engineering Department, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Director, Mid-America Earthquake Center
Keywords: Pseudo-dynamic testing, pre-test condition assessment, fixed-end rotation,

bond-slip
ABSTRACT: In this paper, the use of analytical assessment results for a 3D full scale
Pseudo-dynamic (PsD) testing is presented. A systematic approach to determine an
earthquake scenario for the highly irregular test model was developed. The role of pre-
test analysis in leading the test preparation and execution is presented through actual
situations such as (i) the necessity and detailed procedure of the pre-test condition as-
sessment, (ii) estimation of actuator force, displacement and rotation demands during
the test and (iii) determination of weight (water tanks) magnitude and location to fulfill
the test requirements. Comparison of analytical and experimental results is presented.
Finally, the effect of fixed-end rotation due to bond-slip in the reinforced concrete col-
umns on the results obtained is discussed.
1 INTRODUCTION
A full scale Pseudo Dynamic (PsD) test of a three story two-by-two bays irregular RC
frame was performed in the European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA) of
the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission. The test was planned
under the auspices of the EU project Seismic Performance Assessment and Rehabilita-
tion (SPEAR). Details of the experiment are given in Negro et al. (2004). It was aimed
at the experimental study of coupled translational-torsional dynamic response of an ir-
regular multi-story building under bi-directional earthquake loading. The project is
unique in its concept and configuration of the test structure.
As part of the aforementioned project, this paper presents the role of analytical as-
sessment in the test. For a large-scale test of a complex structure, it is essential to per-
form extensive and dedicated numerical simulations with a fully detailed analytical
model. This is to aid in refining the test details, defining the sequence of testing, select-
ing the most suitable input motion record, and determining the intensity that will cause
the structure to reach the desired limit state. In the preparation process of such a com-
plex test, it is inevitable to encounter situations where decisions must be taken follow-
ing extensive analytical assessment. Below are examples of the latter statement:
189
• Pre-test condition assessment is essential if the test specimen experienced signifi-

cant loading before the main test, for instance during transportation.
• The demand on test equipment (actuators, swivel joints, instrumentation) must be
accurately estimated to insure the adequacy of the used equipment.
• Initial (static) loading magnitude and distribution requires validation, in order that
the test is deemed representative of the intended conditions.
The role of the pre-test analysis is to aid test preparation by providing accurate pre-
dictions of the response of the specimen. The use of pre-test analysis in support of the
above-mentioned decisions is presented in this paper.
2 ANALYTICAL MODELING
2.1 Test structure

The test building has been designed to gravity loads alone, using the concrete design
code applied in Greece between 1954 and 1995. It was built with the construction prac-
tice and materials used in Greece in the early 1970’s. The structural configuration is
also typical of non-earthquake-resistant construction of that period. Smooth bars were
utilized for the reinforcement. Members are provided with minimal amount of stirrups
to withstand low levels of shear forces and the core concrete is virtually not confined.
Columns are slender and more flexible than beams, and beam-column connections
were built without stirrups.
C5 C1 C2
B1 B2
B1 B9 B7
C9 C3 C4
B3
B4
B1 B1 B8
z y C6 C7
y C8 B6
x
B5
x
(a) 3D view of the test structure (b) Plan of the test structure
Figure 1. Overview and plan of the test structure.
Layout of the test structure is represented in Figure 1. Infill walls and stairs are
omitted in the test structure. The large column (C6) in Figure 1 (b) provides the whole
structure with more stiffness and strength in the y direction than in the x direction. De-
tailed descriptions on the test structure and its analytical modelling are given in Jeong
and Elnashai (2004).
190
2.2 Modelling considerations

The finite element analysis program ZeusNL (Elnashai et al. 2003) was utilized to per-
form necessary analyses for the assessment of the test model. The program is capable
of representing spread of inelasticity within the member cross-section and along the
member length utilizing the fibre analysis approach.
The assumptions employed in the analytical modelling of the test structure are
summarized in Table 1. Amongst the parameters in the latter table, analysis results are
sensitive to yield strength of reinforcement, damping ratio, and existence of rigid off-
sets at member ends. In the analytical model, material properties of reinforcing bars are
determined according to test results instead of from nominal values. The test structure
is a bare-frame without any non-structural elements and thus has virtually no source of
energy dissipation except hysteretic damping. Therefore, viscous damping is not in-
cluded in the analytical model whilst hysteretic damping is considered by nonlinear
material modeling. Pre-test analytical models and the modelling options employed are
represented in Table 2. Difficulties in the prediction of beam-column connection be-
haviour lead to the decision to keep 'rigid links at column ends' and 'beam-column joint
shear model' as an option. Details on the latter modelling are given in Jeong and El-
nashai (2005a). The assumption of 'slab rigid diaphragm' was implemented into all pre-
test models. Capacity curves of the four pre-test models are compared in Figure 2. Pre-
test analytical models with rigid links at column ends were stiffer and stronger than
those without rigid links, whilst the effect of adopting beam-column joint shear model
was insignificant; Model #1 and Model #3 are flexible whilst Model #2 and Model #4
are stiff due to the rigid links.
Table 1. Assumptions in analytical modelling

Items in analytical modelling Assumptions
Yield strength
fy=474 MPa (Φ12)
fy=397 MPa (Φ20)
Post-yield stiffness to pre yield
Reinforcement steel
stiffness ratio
(FeB32K from Italian market)
E2/E1=0.0032 (Φ12)
E2/E1=0.0056 (Φ20)
Young's modulus
E1=206000 MPa
Material
Compressive strength
f'c=26.4 MPa
Concrete Confinement factor
K=1.01, from Mander et al.
(1988)
Reinforcement steel
Bilinear Elasto-plastic model
Stress-strain relationship
Concrete
Model of Martinez-Rueda and El-
191
nashai (1997) based on Mander et

al. (1988)
Self weight of RC members 25000 kg/m3
Gravity loads DL+0.3LL
Seismic dead load for mass calcu-
DL+0.3LL
lation
Loading
Distributed at beam column connec-
Mass distribution
tions
P-delta effect Considered
Viscous damping No (only hysteretic)
Analysis program ZEUS-NL
Element model Distributed plasticity model
Centreline dimensions Yes
Rigid offset at beam column con-
Optional (See Table 2)
nection
Structural
Additional deformations at element
modelling Not considered
intersections and footing interface
M-M-N interaction Yes
Web width plus 7% of the clear
Effective flange width of T-beam span of the beam on either side of
the web
500 500
Base shear in y (kN)
Base shear in x (kN)
400 400
300 300
200 200
Model #1 Model #1
Model #2 Model #2
100 Model #3 100 Model #3
Model #4 Model #4
0 0
-200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -100 0 100 200
Top displacement in x (mm) Top displacement in z (mm)
(a) x direction (b) y direction

Figure 2 Comparison of capacity curves.
Table 2 Pre-test analytical models.

Slab rigid diaphragm Rigid links at column ends Beam-column joint shear
Model #1 Yes No No
Model #2 Yes Yes No
Model #3 Yes No Yes
Model #4 Yes Yes Yes
192
3 DETERMINATION OF EARTHQUAKE SCENARIO FOR THE TEST
Providing the most appropriate load condition for a full scale test which can be per-
formed only once is an onerous and high-risk task. In order to obtain comprehensive
data for the investigation of the deficiencies of gravity-load-designed buildings and
suitable repair schemes, significant damage, without collapse, should be inflicted. For a
systematic approach to deal with many scenarios of earthquakes, the procedure was di-
vided into three steps followed by individual decision and reduction in the number of
combinations. At first, an earthquake record was selected considering the possibility of
collapse during the test. Then, the intensity of the selected record was determined to
obtain sufficient information on damage after the test. Finally, the direction of record
application was selected to cause the largest amount of torsion for understanding the
response of an asymmetric building.
3.1 Selection of the Input Record
Through discussions amongst partners of the SPEAR project, seven records were se-
lected as candidates for the test execution. Details on the latter records are given in
Jeong and Elnashai (2004). Two orthogonal components of each record were simulta-
neously applied to the analytical model, after scaling down to 0.2 g PGA. The re-
sponses of the building under the seven records were investigated by interstory drift
time histories. Failure prevention was considered as an important criterion for selection
of a record to obtain more controllable results and a stream of good response data in
the real test. Montenegro 1979 (Herceg Novi) was selected because no pronounced
peak was observed and the latter part of the response is larger than the earlier part, thus
allowing considerable experimental results prior to subjecting the structure to the
maximum demand region. This response characteristic is clearly shown by comparing
the responses of selected (Figure 3 (a)) and one of the excluded records (Figure 3 (b)).
1st level 2nd level 3rd level 1st level 2nd level 3rd level
120 120
90 90
Interstory drift in x (mm)
Interstory drift in x (mm)
60 60
30 30
0 0
-30 -30
-60 -60
-90 -90
-120 -120
0 3 6 9 12 15 0 3 6 9 12 15
Time (sec.) Time (sec.)
(a) Montenegro 1979 (Herceg Novi, 0.2g) (b) Kalamata 1986 (Prefecture,
0.2g)
Figure 3. Interstory drift in the x direction at the centre column C3, direction of input records-
D1.
193
3.2 Intensity of ground motion for the test

To determine an appropriate intensity of ground motion, damage levels of the structure
under the selected record (Montenegro 1979-Herceg Novi) with various PGA levels
were investigated. As a damage index, interstory drift was preferred to curvature de-
mand because the former is easy to monitor and accurate enough to estimate damage
inflicted on critical columns. The demand-to-capacity ratio (DCR) of each column was
calculated by Equation (1) in order to account for the bi-directional response of the
structure.
(∆ /∆ u, x ) + (∆ y /∆ u, y )
2 2
DCR = x
(1)
Where, ∆x and ∆y are the interstory drift in the x direction and in the y direction, re-
spectively. The subscript u represents ultimate interstory drift. The ultimate interstory
drift of each column is the drift where the curvature of the column reaches the ultimate
value under average axial force. The ultimate curvature is conservatively assumed to
be the curvature where the strain of the confined core concrete is 0.003. In Figure 4,
DCR time histories of critical members C1, C2, C3 and C4 are presented. As noted in
the latter figure, the DCRs of critical columns become larger than 1.0 under the records
with PGAs of 0.12g and 0.14g. Thus, the latter intensities are expected to be strong
enough to give severe damage to the critical members without collapse of the structure.
Considering that the ultimate capacities of critical members are conservatively as-
sumed, 0.12g PGAs was suggested for the test as a lower bound of appropriate levels
of intensity for the test.
2 C3 C1 2 C3 C1
C2 C4 C2 C4
Demand/Capacity (ID)
Demand/Capacity (ID)
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 0 3 6 9 12 15
(a) Montenegro 1979 (Herceg Novi, 0.12g) (b) Montenegro 1979 (Herceg Novi, 0.14g)
Figure 4. DCR of critical columns, Montenegro 1979-Herceg Novi, direction of input records-
D1.
3.3 Direction of ground motion

Two orthogonal components of the selected semi-artificial record, Montenegro 1979
(Herceg Novi) were applied to the building in eight different combinations of direc-
tions as shown in Figure 5. Applied combinations are referred to as D1 through D8.
194
D8 D4 D3 D7
L T L T
C5 C1 C2
T L T L
C9 C3 C4
L T y L T
C8 C6 C7
x
T L T L
D5 D1 D2 D6
Figure 5. Combinations of directions to apply the ground motions.
One of the main objectives of the test was to investigate the effect of torsion - an
important characteristic in the seismic response of an asymmetric building. The amount
of torsion was considered as a main criterion for the decision of loading direction. The
torsional effect can be measured by the standard deviation of drifts at all columns
which represents the sparseness of column drifts due to torsion, as shown in Figure 6.
The two largest values and corresponding directions of loading are summarized in Ta-
ble 3. Figure 6 and Table 3 show that loading cases where the effect of torsion is the
largest are 0.12g-D1and 0.14g-D1 (intensity-direction pairs). According to the previ-
ous discussions, the selected record with intensity of 0.12g PGA in direction D1 and
0.14g PGA in direction D1 were recommended as input ground motion for the test.
40 D1 D2 D3 D4 40 D1 D2 D3 D4
Standard deviation of demand
D5 D6 D7 D8 D5 D6 D7 D8
Standard deviation of demand
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 0 3 6 9 12 15
(a) 0.12g (b) 0.14g

Figure 6. Standard deviation of drift demands of all columns, Montenegro 1979-Herceg Novi.
Table 4 Two largest standard deviations of drifts at columns

Standard deviation of displacements (mm)
PGA (g)
1st 2nd
0.12 D1 (28.1) D3 (26.2)
0.14 D1 (30.9) D3 (29.8)
195
4 DEPLOYMENT OF ANALYTICAL MODELS FOR TEST EXECUTION
4.1 Pre-test condition assessment

The test structure was transported inside the ELSA laboratory after the construction
was completed in the laboratory outside yard. A foundation structure was designed for
the test specimen to be constructed on, efficiently transported and fixed to the strong
floor of the laboratory. Hydraulic jacks were installed on the holes penetrating the
foundation structure and lifted the specimen by pushing up against the floor. Several
sets of rollers were placed underneath the foundation structure to move the test build-
ing. To prevent transportation damage, low-tolerance floor flatness along the moving
path was required.
The thickness of the foundation structure was not uniform due to the irregular floor
at the concrete casting location (Figure 7 (a)). The process of sliding the structure on
floors with different levels of flatness simulates the situation of non-uniform support
settlements. The differences in floor flatness caused cracks on the structure during the
transportation of the test structure into the laboratory (Figure 7 (b)). The gaps between
the base concrete of the test structure and floor of the laboratory is filled with mortar in
order to adjust the foundation level after the transportation of the structure. (Figure 7
(c)).
Foundation
structure
(a) After construction (b) Moving (c) After level adjustment

Figure 7. Floor levels under the foundation structure.
-10 16 F
-4 0 16
∆
28
15
25 Spring element
26 28
y 26 26 27 30
x 31 Rigid element
(a) Level difference (mm) (b) Numerical modelling of foundation
Figure 8. Analytical modelling of the foundation structure with irregular thickness
The data of level measurement at the location that was expected to have the greatest
floor level irregularity during the transportation are represented in Figure 8 (a). The lat-
ter data was used to model the thickness irregularity of the foundation structure instead
of the floor level difference at the original concrete casting place which was not avail-
able. Irregularity in the thickness of the foundation structure is modelled by rigid ele-
196
ments with different lengths under the structure, as shown in Figure 8 (b). The reaction
from the floor exists only when the rigid elements are in compression. In order to rep-
resent the latter relationship of unidirectional force transfer, spring elements that have
an asymmetric force-displacement relationship are utilized between the foundation
structure and the floor (Figure 8 (b)).
It was impossible to know the exact amount of level difference along the transporta-
tion path and support settlements at all columns. Therefore, it was assumed that the
structure would have experienced five cases of support settlements during the transpor-
tation, as shown in Figure 9. The latter five cases are individually modelled and re-
ferred to as Case (A) through Case (E), as shown in Figure 9.
Case (A) Case (B) Case (C) Case (D) Case (E)
Uniformly supported C1, C2 & C5 C6, C7 & C8 C3, C4 & C9 C3 is not supported
are not supported are not supported are not supported
Figure 9. Scenarios of irregular foundation
Comparison between the response of the structure that had experienced support set-
tlement and the intact structure was performed using dynamic response history analy-
ses, as shown in Figure 10. In order to simulate the real situation as realistically as pos-
sible, inelastic static analyses with support settlements were followed by dynamic
response history analyses in a single simulation, to lock-in the damage. Firstly, non-
uniform support settlement was statically imposed to the structure. The vertical posi-
tions of supports were then returned to their initial position to simulate foundation level
adjustment in the laboratory. After static analyses, dynamic analyses were performed
under two orthogonal components of Montenegro 1979 - Herceg Novi record. The
peak ground acceleration was 0.12g for both orthogonal components of the record.
In the real experiment, weights would not be placed on the structure until instru-
mentations as well as foundation adjustment. In the simulation, therefore, additional
design gravity loads were applied to the structure only for dynamic response history
analyses. In Figure 10, the response of a structure after support settlement case (A) is
the same as that of the intact structure, which means that the effect of support settle-
ment is negligible provided that the foundation level adjustment is carefully performed.
This is same for other cases in Figure 9.
197
DL. I: Self weight of the structure

DL. II: Finishing + 0.3·Live load DL. II DL. II
DL. I DL. I DL. I DL. I
After construction Support settlement After level adjustment Dynamic analysis

(1) (2) (3) (4)
40
Support settlement (mm)
(1) (2) (3) (4)

20
-20 C9 C5
C3 C7
-40
0 10 20 30 40
Time (sec.)
(a) Support settlement at column locations (C3, C5, C7 & C9)
80
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Top displacement (mm)
40
-40 Case (A)

Intact structure
-80
0 10 20 30 40
Time (sec.)
(b) Top displacement (x direction)
80
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Top displacement (mm)
40
-40 Case (A)

Intact structure
-80
0 10 20 30 40
Time (sec.)
(c) Top displacement (y direction)
Figure 10. Comparison of dynamic responses of Case (A) and intact structure
198
4.2 Determination of Actuator Movement

Actuator movements were determined by numerical simulations to check if the capaci-
ties of actuators would be sufficient for testing the structure up to a severe damage
state. Figure 11 shows that the locations of actuators and the movement of each actua-
tor are defined by stroke (dL) and rotation angle (θ). In order to calculate the move-
ments (dL and θ) of actuators, the exact information on the location and length of each
actuator was obtained from the ELSA. The pre-test analytical model (Model #1) with-
out rigid links and shear deformation at beam-column connections showed the largest
top displacement (Jeong and Elnashai, 2005a). Therefore, the latter pre-test model was
utilized in order to obtain an upper-bound (conservative) estimate of the actuator
movement. In addition to the test scenario of 0.15g, a PGA of 0.2g was applied to plan
for unexpected situations with regard to actuator demand.
Reaction wall
R3
R2 dL
R4 R1
L L'
y
Reaction wall Reaction wall

x
Figure 11. Positions and directions of actuators.
Figure 12 (a) shows that the maximum displacement demand (dL) is less than 150
mm. According to the information from ELSA, the maximum stroke capacities are ±
250 mm for the first level actuators and ± 500 mm for the second and 3rd level actua-
tors. The connecting joints at the ends of each actuator can freely rotate without any
angular limitation. Therefore, the capacities of actuators in the ELSA are sufficient to
perform the pseudo-dynamic test of the SPEAR RC frame. The clearance between the
structure and actuators during the test can be calculated by subtracting the radius (or
half the sectional dimension) of the actuator from the minimum distance between the
centre line of actuator and corner of the test structure in Figure 12 (b). Since the radius
of actuator is approximately 150 mm and the minimum value in Figure 12 (b) is 280
mm, the clearance between actuators and the structure would be more than 130 mm
during the test.
199
200 R1_1 R1_2 R1_3 R2_1

R2_2 R2_3 R3_1 R3_2 500
Distance from actuator centerline

to corners of the structure (mm)
150 R3_3 R4_1 R4_2 R4_3
400
100
Stroke (mm)
50 300
0
200
-50
R1_1 R1_2 R1_3 R2_1
100 R2_2 R2_3 R3_1 R3_2
-100
R3_3 R4_1 R4_2 R4_3
-150 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 0 3 6 9 12 15
(a) (b)
Figure 12. Estimation of actuator movement: (a) Stroke time histories of actuators, (b) Mini-
mum distance between the centre line of actuator and corner of the test structure (Montenegro
1979-Herceg Novi, direction of input records-D1, 0.2g PGA).
4.3 Gravity load distribution for the test

Water tanks were utilized to apply the design gravity (dead and live) loads to the test
structure. The distribution of water tanks is determined by locating their centre of
weight at the centre of weight of slabs to give the same axial force on columns as the
uniform load distribution. The role of the water tanks on the test structure was only to
simulate the initial gravity loading. Its distribution was affected by neither mass eccen-
tricity nor the centre of mass because the mass distribution is analytically modelled in
PsD testing. The locations and weight of water tanks on each slab are described in Fig-
ure 13 (a). The weight on each slab was obtained by multiplying the area of the slab
with the value of design gravity loads which is 1.1 kN/m2. An analytical model with
point loads at locations of the water tanks as shown in Figure 13 (a) and another with
distributed loads were compared with regard to axial forces on columns. Figure 13 (b)
shows that the difference in column axial forces between two loading conditions is
negligible. Therefore, it was concluded that the water tank distribution was appropri-
ately determined for the test.
200
5.50 m
0.85 m
1.50 m
C5 C1 C2
2.75 m
3.00 m
500
9.67 kN Water tank
16.84 16.84 11.45 kN Distributed weight
400
9.67 kN
Axial force (kN)

S3 300
S1 S2
C9 C3
S4 200
C4
8.81 kN
100
S5 15.20 15.20 2.00 m
2.50 m
8.81 kN 0
y C6 C7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
C8
Column ID.
x 3.35 m
(a) (b)
Figure 13. Weight determination: (a) Water tank location, (b) Comparison of axial forces on the
first story columns between water tank gravity load and uniformly distributed gravity load
5 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND COMPARISON WITH ANALYTICAL

ASSESSMENT
It was concluded, after discussions amongst the project partners, that using 0.12g PGA
record-one of the suggested intensities in Section 3-would be very conservative. There-
fore, in the real test, the intensity of the ground motion was adjusted to 0.15g PGA
whilst the record (Montenegro, 1979 - Herceg Novi) and loading direction (D1 in Fig-
ure 5) were adopted as suggested in this paper.
The responses of Model #1 described in Section 1are compared with the experimen-
tal results (0.15g PGA) in Figure 14. According to the detailed comparison of experi-
mental and analytical results in Jeong and Elanshai (2004), whilst the response estima-
tions by Model #1 and Model #3 are in good agreement with the experimental results,
Model #2 and Model #4 underestimate both period and small-amplitude responses in
the x direction. The latter models adopted rigid links at column ends, and thus they are
stiffer and stronger than the former models.
According to the damage pattern identified through visual inspection in Jeong and
Elnashai (2005b), shear cracks at beam-column joints and beam hinging were not de-
tected after the test. This indicates that the beams were very strong and remained al-
most in the elastic range. This observation raises questions about the suitability of ana-
lytical models without rigid links, such as Model #1 and Model #3. Since rigid links at
column ends represents a strong-beam weak-column condition, the beam-column con-
nection behaviour would have been most suitably modelled by Model #2 which has
rigid links at column ends without beam-column joint shear. However, the analysis re-
sults of Model #2 are not as close to the experimental results as those of Model #1 or
Model #3. This can be explained by fixed-end rotation due to bond-slip. After the test,
most columns had a single clear crack at the construction joint, instead of a group of
smaller cracks spread over the plastic hinge zone. This observation, and the use of
201
smooth bars for the longitudinal reinforcement, implies that bond-slip caused the rota-
tion at column ends and contributed to the story drift, as shown in Figure 15.
120 120
ELSA test result ELSA test result
80 Pre-test simulation (Model #1) 80 Pre-test simulation (Model #1)
Top displ. in y (mm)

Top displ. in x (mm)
40 40
0 0
-40 -40
-80 -80
-120 -120
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
(a) Test result and model #1, x direction (b) Test result and model #1, y direc-
tion
Figure 14. Comparison of top displacements at the centre of mass (0.15g PGA)
Center line of
the beam Rigid link
Plastic
hinge
Test structure Model #1, 3 Model #2, 4

Figure 15. Comparison of plastic hinge locations
The inelastic displacement is obtained from integrating the spread of inelasticity

along the member since the analytical program (ZEUS-NL, Elnashai et al, 2002) uses
fibre-based section analysis. If the plastic hinge is defined as a centre of influence of
distributed curvature in plastic range, the location of the plastic hinge is distant from
the end of the member, as shown in Figure 15. Therefore, without rigid links at column
ends the location of the plastic hinge is very close to the column end. Thus, the analyti-
cal model without rigid links can simulate the effect of rotation at column ends (fixed-
end rotation) due to bond-slip to the overall behaviour. In summary, the latter analyti-
cal model is more appropriate to model a RC structure with smooth bars than that with
rigid links.
6 CONCLUSION
The successful pre-test preparation presented in this paper underlines the importance of
the analytical assessment procedure and its role in leading complex test setups. The
202
pre-test simulations aided in refining the test details, confirming the demand required
from the hydraulic actuators and attachments and defining the sequence of testing, and
the technique of combining static analysis and dynamic response history analysis en-
abled the pre-test condition assessment of the large-scale test specimen. Important is-
sues emanating from the comparison of analytical and experimental results presented
above. These are summarized as follows:
• The high irregularity in plan renders extensive pre-test analysis essential to con-
strain the response to a level of damage that meets the purpose of the test. The se-
lection of earthquake scenarios was performed to satisfy three criteria: (i) collapse
prevention, (ii) severe damage level for the acquisition of data on repair and (iii)
maximum torsion for understanding the response of an asymmetric building.
• Whilst the intact beams after the test are not in compliance with the local behav-
iour predicted by the models without rigid links (Model #1 and Model #3), the lat-
ter models estimated the global responses very closely compared to the experimen-
tal result. This can be explained by bond-slip which was observed after the test.
• Pre-test model without rigid links (Model #1) provided a good estimation of re-
duced stiffness and strength of the test structure due to bond-slip, by forming plas-
tic hinges closer to the column ends.
• For an RC frame with smooth bars and responding as a strong-beam weak-column
system, the effect of fixed-end rotation due to bond-slip should be accounted for.
Analytical modelling without bond-slip results in overestimation of the stiffness
and strength.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work presented above was undertaken under the Mid-America Earthquake (MAE)
Center research project CM-4: Structural Retrofit Strategies, which is part of the Con-
sequence Minimization thrust area. The MAE Center is a National Science Foundation
Engineering Research Center (ERC), funded through contract reference NSF Award
No. EEC-9701785. The detailed configuration and experimental results of the SPEAR
test structure were provided by the partners of the SPEAR project funded by the Euro-
pean Union. Thanks are due to Professors P.Pinto, M.Fardis, M.Calvi and Drs.
E.Carvalho and P.Negro. The cooperation of members of the EU Joint Research Cen-
tre, Ispra, especially Elena Mola, is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Elnashai, A.S., Papanikolaou, V. and Lee, D-H. 2003, ZeusNL - A system for inelastic analysis
of structures. Mid-America Earthquake (MAE) Center Report, CD Release 03-02
Jeong, S.-H. and Elnashai, A.S. 2004, Analytical assessment of an irregular RC full scale 3D
test structures. Mid-America Earthquake (MAE) Center Report, CD Release 04-03
Jeong, S.-H. & Elnashai, A.S. 2005a, Analytical assessment of an irregular RC frame for full-
scale 3D pseudo-dynamic testing - Part I: Analytical model verification. Journal of Earth-
203
quake Engineering 9(1): 95-128

Jeong, S.-H. & Elnashai, A.S. 2005b, Analytical assessment of an irregular RC frame for full-
scale 3D pseudo-dynamic testing - Part II: Condition assessment and test deployment. Jour-
nal of Earthquake Engineering 9(2): 265-284
Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N. and Park, R. 1988, Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
concrete. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 114(8): 1804-1826
Martinez-Rueda, J.E. and Elnashai, A.S., 1997, Confined concrete model under cyclic load.
Materials and Structures 30(197): 139-147
Negro, P., Mola, E., Molina, J. and Magonette, G. 2004, Full scale bi-directional PSD testing of
a torsionally imbalanced three storey non-seismic RC Frame. 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, 968
204
Post-test nonlinear analysis of the SPEAR test building
N. Ile1, J. M. Reynouard1
1. INSA-Lyon, France
ABSTRACT: In this paper it is presented the study of the inelastic seismic response of
the 3-storey irregular SPEAR building, which was pseudodinamically tested under bi-
directional seismic excitations at the ELSA Laboratory of the Joint Research Centre. In
the proposed method a 3D modeling is employed to capture the seismic response of the
structure. Comparison of analytical and experimental results indicate that the effect of
fixed end rotation due to bond-slip plays an important role and has to be adequately
taken into account.
1 INTRODUCTION
Given, the fact that most of existing plan-irregular buildings, were designed for gravity
loads only, before the recent seismic provisions were enforced, the SPEAR project was
aimed at the experimental and numerical study of this type of building under bi-
directional earthquake loading. To enhance the issues brought by plan-irregularity in
older structures, the specimen was especially designed so as to represent a typical non-
earthquake-resistant construction: it is a strong beam-weak column system, adding to
the drawbacks originating from the plan eccentricity, the problems of poor local detail-
ing, under-designed elements or joints and older construction practice, Mola & Negro
& Pinto (2004). Three round of pseudodynamic tests under bi-directional input (scaled
at 0.02g, 0.15g and 0.20g), were performed at the ELSA Laboratory. The data col-
lected during the tests is useful not only to improve the understanding of the behaviour
of irregular buildings, but also to improve the existing computational models, with the
more general objective of using these models to study a whole range of irregular struc-
tures with the certainty of reliable results.
This paper compares test results with numerical predictions based on a refined 3D
nonlinear representation of the structural behaviour. In a first phase, numerical results
based on the assumption of perfect bond between steel and reinforcement are presented.
In a further step the numerical results obtained with the model modified so as to take
into account the slippage of reinforcement are compared with the experimental results.
Based on the findings of both experimental and analytical results, some recommenda-
tions for improved analysis have resulted.
205
2 MODELLING APPROACH AND EIGENFREQUENCY ANALYSIS
The numerical analyses have been performed using the general-purpose finite element
program CASTEM 2000 developed at CEA-Saclay, Millard (1993). Since the structure
is an irregular 3 storey building subjected to bi-directional earthquake type loading, a
3D model has been adopted in analysis. Columns are modeled by fiber elements, while
layered thin shell discrete Kirchoff triangles (DKT) are used to represent the beams
and column C6, which has a larger depth. The slabs are also represented by four nod-
ded shell elements. An example of the 3D finite element mesh used in the analyses is
reported in Figure 1. The possibility of non-linear material behavior was specified for
all column and beam elements, while the behavior of the slabs was considered as elas-
tic. The structure is assumed fully restrained at all nodes along the base and perfect
bond was assumed to exist between concrete and reinforcement. With these modeling
assumptions, the coordinates of the centre of mass of the model with respect to the ref-
erence system are very close to those of the specimen: (-1.58 m, 0.85 m) for the first
and second storey and (-1.65 m, -0.94 m) for the third storey respectively, Negro &
Mola & Molina & Magonette (2004). The structural mass considered is the one that
takes into account the finishings and the live loads assumed to act at the time of the
earthquake: 67264 kg at the first and second storey and 62804 kg at the third one.
a)
b)
Figure 1. The SPEAR Structure: a) test specimen, b) 3D model
206
An eigenvalue analysis was firstly performed, taking Young’s modulus for concrete as
25 000 MPa and 200 000 MPa for the reinforcing steel, respectively. Figure 2 presents
the first three natural frequencies and mode shapes. From this figure it can be observed
the degree of coupling between the flexural and the translational behaviors starting
from the very first modes, which seems to be in good agreement with the experimental
mode shapes reported by Negro & Mola & Molina & Magonette (2004). The numerical
frequencies are however overestimated by the analysis and the differences are not in-
significant. We could partly explain these differences by the fact that some cracking
due to transportation and gravity loads has not been considered in the analysis.
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3

1.57 Hz (Analysis) 1.85 Hz (Analysis) 2.37 Hz (Analysis)
1.19 Hz (Test) 1.29 Hz (Test) 1.5 Hz (Test)
Figure 2. Modal shapes and frequencies
3 CONSTITUTIVE MODELS AND MATERIAL PARAMETERS
The uniaxial behavior of concrete (BETON_UNI model) was adopted for describing
the nonlinear behavior of the fiber type beam elements, Guedes & all, (1994). For the
shell elements an elasto-plastic concrete model that provides acceptable representation
of the cyclic inelastic behavior of reinforced concrete under cyclic loading was used.
This model, Merabet & Reynouard (1999), adopts the concept of a smeared crack ap-
proach with a possible double cracking only at 90°. It is based upon the plasticity the-
ory for uncracked concrete with isotropic hardening and associated flow rule. Two dis-
tinct criteria describe the failure surface: Nadai in compression and bi-compression and
Rankine in tension. Hardening is isotropic and an associated flow rule is used. When
the ultimate surface is reached in tension, a crack is created perpendicularly to the
principal direction of maximum tensile stress, and its orientation is considered as fixed
subsequently. Each direction is then processed independently by a cyclic uniaxial law,
and the stress tensor in the local co-ordinate system defined by the direction of the
cracks is completed by the shear stress, elastically calculated with a reduced shear
modulus modulus, to account for the effect of interface shear transfer. The model has
been described in detail and verified elsewhere, Ile (2000).
207
For steel, a cyclic model that can take into account the Bauschinger effect and buckling
of reinforcing bars has been adopted. The cyclic behavior is described by the formula-
tion proposed by Giuffré and Pinto and implemented by Menegoto & Pinto (1973).
The concrete was modelled as having an initial modulus of elasticity of 25 000 MPa
and a Poisson ration of 0.2. The concrete compressive strength was 27 MPa and the
tensile concrete strength was set equal to 2.2 MPa. The evaluation of steel parameters
was quite simple: the measured elastic modulus, yield and failure stress of the steel bars
being directly used, Negro & Mola & Molina & Magonette (2004).
4 COMPARISONS WITH EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Before applying the lateral load, vertical loads, tacking into account the slab weight, the
finishings and the live loads were imposed to the model. The Herceg-Novi pair of re-
cords (H-N longitudinal and H-N transverse) scaled to a PGA of 0.15g was then con-
sidered, while maintaining the initial vertical load as constant. To solve the non-linear
equilibrium equations, a modified Newton-Raphson iteration solution scheme was
used. A very low viscous damping of 0.5% was considered in the analysis for numeri-
cal stability, in accordance with the fact that the PSD tests were performed with no vis-
cous damping.
In Figures 3, 4 and 5 the time history of the calculated displacements in the X and Y
directions are compared with the corresponding measured displacements. Figures 6, 7
and 8 show the comparison between the calculated and measured storey-level hystere-
sis loops for the X and Y directions. As can be seen from the displacement time-
histories, the correlation between analysis and experiment is not satisfactory, the dis-
placements being generally underestimated by the analysis. Also, from the storey-level
hysteresis loops it can be observed that the model gives higher stiffness and strength in
both directions as compared to the experimental results. In addition, hysteresis loops
for the 2nd and 3rd level shows that the model dissipates less energy as compared to that
obtained experimentally.
In order to explain these differences, it is to be remembered firstly, that no provisions
were made in the model to account for the slippage of reinforcement. Secondly, it is to
be noted that in the test specimen smooth bars were used for the longitudinal rein-
forcement and the columns are weaker than the beams. Damage pattern after the test,
Jeong & Elnashai (2005), Mola & Negro & Pinto (2004), also indicated that beams
were very strong and remained almost in the elastic range, while most columns had a
single clear crack at the construction joint. All these seem to indicate that bond-slip
caused the rotation at column ends and contributed to the storey drift. Therefore, no
consideration of bond-slip in analysis, results in overestimation of stiffness.
208
20.0
Displacement (mm)
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
-5.0
-10.0
X Displacement
-15.0
0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0
Time (sec)
15.0
Displacement (mm)
10.0
5.0
0.0
-5.0
-10.0
Y Displacement
-15.0
0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0
Time (sec)
EXP
Model
Figure 3. First level displacement time-history
40.0
Displacement (mm)
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
-10.0
-20.0
-30.0
-40.0 X Displacement
-50.0
0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0
Time (sec)
30.0
Displacement (mm)
20.0
10.0
0.0
-10.0
-20.0
-30.0
Y Displacement
-40.0
0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0
Time (sec)
EXP
Model
Figure 4. Second level displacement time-history
209
60.0
Displacement (mm)
40.0
20.0
0.0
-20.0
-40.0
-80.0
0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0
Time (sec)
50.0
Displacement (mm)
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
-10.0
-20.0
-30.0
-40.0 Y Displacement
-50.0
0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0
Time (sec)
EXP
Model
Figure 5. Third level displacement time-history
300.0 500.0
400.0
200.0
Interstorey shear (KN)
300.0
100.0
200.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
-100.0
-100.0
-200.0 X Direction -200.0

Y Direction
-300.0
-300.0
-400.0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Interstorey drift (mm) Interstorey drift (mm)
EXP
Model
Figure 6. First level hysteresis loops
210
250.0
400.0
200.0
300.0

150.0
100.0 200.0
50.0 100.0
0.0
0.0
-50.0
-100.0 -100.0
-150.0 X Direction -200.0 Y Direction

-200.0
-300.0
-250.0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
EXP
Model
Figure 7. Second level hysteresis loops
150.0 250.0
200.0
100.0
150.0
50.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
-50.0
X Direction -50.0
-100.0 Y Direction
-100.0
-150.0
-150.0 -200.0
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

EXP
Model
Figure 8. Third level hysteresis loops
One way to take into account the slippage of reinforcement would be to model explic-
itly the beam column connection in 3D with some kind of cyclic bond-slip model.
However, for a real size structure as is the case of the SPEAR specimen, this is pres-
ently still very demanding in computer time and resources. Another solution would be
211
to calibrate the behaviour of the beam-column connection to be used in a more global

model, based on a refined model. In this way, the fixed-end rotation due to slip could
be modelled by a spring with a suitable nonlinear moment-rotation relation and placed
at the bottom of the column as shown in Figure 9.
Refined Model for bond - slip

Equivalent Model
Spring: M- θ relation
to be determined
Cyclic
CyclicBond-Slip
Bond-SlipModel
Model
τ
A B
τ1 E
A' E' B'

C
τ3 D
L N C' D'
-s3 -s2 -s1 F
K O s1 s2 s3 s
D'1 C'1 I
D1
-τ 3 G
C1
J
B'1 A'1
B1 -τ 1
A1
Figure 9. From local to global modelling of the beam-column connection
This detailed analysis of the behaviour of the beam-column connection in order to find
a more suitable global equivalent model was not investigated in this study. It will be
the subject of a further research. However, for a preliminary rough assessment of the
structural behaviour, elastic flexural springs with reduced bending stiffness were added
at the bottom of each column. The flexural stiffness of the springs was determined so
as to reduce the differences between the test and model eigenfrequencies as can be seen
in Figure 10.
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
1.10 Hz (Calc.) 1.46 Hz (Calc.) 1.84 Hz (Calc.)

1.19 Hz (Exp.) 1.29 Hz (Exp.) 1.5 Hz (Exp.)
Figure 10. Eigenfrequencies for the modified model
212
The resulted presented in Figures 11-13 show that taking into account bon-sleep even
in an approximate way allows to obtain a much better correlation between analysis and
experiment.
20.0
Displacement (mm)
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
-5.0
-10.0
-20.0
0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0
Time (sec)
15.0
Displacement (mm)
10.0
5.0
0.0
-5.0
-15.0
0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0
Time (sec)
EXP
Model
Figure 11. First level displacement time-history
60.0
Displacement (mm)
40.0
20.0
0.0
-20.0
-40.0
-80.0
0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0
Time (sec)
60.0
Displacement (mm)
40.0
20.0
0.0
-20.0
-60.0
0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0
Time (sec)
EXP
Model
Figure 12. Second level displacement time-history
213
40.0
Displacement (mm)
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
-10.0
-20.0
-40.0
-50.0
0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0
Time (sec)
40.0
Displacement (mm)
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
-10.0
-20.0
-40.0
0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0
Time (sec)
EXP
Model
Figure 13. Third level displacement time-history
5 CONCLUSIONS
In this paper modeling considerations to correctly represent the seismic response of the
SPEAR test structure are presented. Analysis results of two different numerical models
are compared with measured data from the test. Based on the results obtained, a sum-
mary of the issues discussed is given bellow:
- The model that assumed no slippage of reinforcement resulted in overestimation of

stiffness and strength.
- The model that approximately considered the fixed-end rotation due to bond slip es-
timated the global response more closely to the measured one.
- For a strong-beam weak-column system, the effect of fixed-end rotation due to bond-
slip should not be neglected.
- Refined models for beam column connection are needed to calibrate macro models
for efficient time-history analysis.
AKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research was financed by the European Commission under LESSLOSS FP6 Pro-
gram.
214
REFERENCES
Guedes, J. & all. 1994. A Fibre/Timoshenko Beam Element in CASTEM2000, Special Publica-
tion Nr.I.94.31, JRC-Ispra,55p.
Ile, N. & Reynouard, J. M. 2000. Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete shear wall under
earthquake loading, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol 4, No 2, 2000, pp. 183-213.
Jeong S-h., Elnashai, A.S. 2005, Analytical Assesment of an Irregular RC Frame for Full-Scale
3D Pseudo-dynamic Testing Part II: Condition Assessment and Test Deployment, Journal
of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 2, Imperial College Press, pp. 265-284.
Menegoto, M. & Pinto, P. 1973. Method of analysis of cyclically loaded reinforced concrete
plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behaviour of elements under
combined normal force and bending”, IABSE Symposium on resistance and ultimate de-
formability of structures acted on by well-defined repeated loads, Final report, Lisbon,
328p.
Merabet O, & Reynouard, J.M. 1999. Formulation d’un modèle elasto-plastique fissurable pour
le béton sous chargement cyclique, Contract Study EDF/DER, Final Report, No.1/943/002,
URGC-Structures, National Institute for Applied Sciences, Lyon, 84 p.
Millard A. 1993. “CASTEM 2000, Manuel d’utilisation, CEA-LAMBS Report No. 93/007,
Saclay, France, 186 p.
Mola, E., Negro, P., Pinto A.V. 2004. Evaluation of Current Approaches for the Analysis and
Design of Multi-Storey Torsionally Unbalanced Frames, 13th World Conference on Earth-
quake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August 1-6, Paper No. 3304.
Negro, P., Mola, E., Molina, F.J., Magonette, G.E. 2004. Full-Scale PSD Testing of a Torsion-
ally Unbalanced Three-Storey Non-Seismic RC Frame, 13th World Conference on Earth-
quake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August 1-6, Paper No. 968.
215
216
Capacity-Based Equivalent Linear Modeling of the SPEAR
Test Frame
M. S. Gunay1, H. Sucuoglu2
1. Research Assistant, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
2. Professor, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
ABSTRACT: An equivalent linear model is developed for the SPEAR frame for pre-
dicting its dynamic response in this study. In the equivalent linear analysis, the ex-
pected locations of inelastic behavior are identified first and the stiffness of members
corresponding to these locations are reduced accordingly by using the moment de-
mand-to-capacity ratios obtained from the linear elastic analysis under the considered
ground motion. Equivalent damping ratio is also determined by considering the force
reduction factor (R) for each mode. Finally, the dynamic response quantities are deter-
mined by employing a linear elastic analysis of the structure under base excitation with
reduced stiffness and equivalent damping. The results indicated good correlation be-
tween the predicted and observed displacement responses.
1 INTRODUCTION
Recent developments in performance-based procedures produced powerful tools for

the seismic safety assessment of existing buildings (ATC-40, FEMA-356). These
methods provide valuable and detailed information on the expected seismic perform-
ances of vulnerable buildings. However, there are two important shortcomings on their
effectiveness in handling the global seismic safety issues. First, they require inelastic
analysis capabilities which are not available to most structural engineering profession-
als. Moreover, inelastic structural analysis tools are not as standard as the linear elastic
analysis methods (Wight et al. 1999). Second, the size of the problem or the number of
buildings in earthquake prone regions that has to be assessed before the next earth-
quake is too large. This time limitation, combined with the necessity for detailed ana-
lytical models, introduces the need to consider the global responses rather than the de-
tails in seismic assessment. Simpler and more efficient seismic performance assessment
procedures may serve to overcome these shortcomings.
An equivalent linearization procedure which combines the advantages of linear pro-
cedures with the merits of capacity principles is applied to the SPEAR test frame. Cal-
culated responses are compared with the results obtained from the test.
217
2 CAPACITY-BASED EQUIVALENT LINEARIZATION PROCEDURE
This procedure is a displacement-based assessment that employs linear elastic static

analysis in combination with the capacity principles in order to predict the true nonlin-
ear response. It is based on combining the results of a demand analysis (linear elastic)
and a capacity analysis (limit state) in order to obtain an equivalent linear system with
reduced stiffness and increased damping. Outline of the procedure is presented in
Scheme 1 and the details of the procedure under bi-directional excitation are explained
in the following paragraphs.
Demand Analysis Capacity Analysis

(Linear Elastic) (Limit State)
Determination of Yielding Member-End Distribution
Equivalent Linear System with Reduced Stiffness and Increased Damping

Linear Elastic Analysis of the Equivalent System
Seismic Performance Decision for the Building

Scheme 1. Outline of the equivalent linearization procedure.
2.1 Demand Analysis

In the demand analysis part, linear time-history analysis of the building is performed
under a bi-directional excitation and internal moments corresponding to the maximum
top story displacements in +X, -X, +Y, and -Y directions (Fig. 1) are obtained. Cracked
section stiffness is employed in the linear elastic model according to FEMA-356
(ASCE, 2000) recommendations.
3.0 5.0 1.7
5.5
6.0
Y 5.0
4.0
Figure 1. X and Y axes on the plan of the SPEAR test frame.
218
2.2 Capacity Analysis

Capacity analysis is conducted in order to determine the axial forces of the columns
and decide on the potential yielding member ends when the structure reaches its global
resistance capacity. Steps of the capacity analysis are presented in Scheme 2.
STEP 1 : Calculation of the Moment Capacities of Beams
STEP 2 : Calculation of the Axial Forces in Columns

Correction of
STEP 3 : Calculation of the Moment Capacities of Columns Beam End
Moments
STEP 4 : Calculation of BCCR values at the Joints
STEP 5 : Decision on the Potential Yielding Member Ends
Scheme 2. Steps of the capacity analysis.
2.2.1 Calculation of the Moment Capacities of Beams (Step 1)

Flexural capacities of beam end sections are calculated by using the nominal material
strengths.
2.2.2 Calculation of the Axial Forces in Columns (Step 2)

Axial forces are needed for the calculation of moment capacities of reinforced concrete
columns. Under the combination of gravity and earthquake forces, total axial force in a
column is equal to the sum of the axial forces due to gravity loading (NG) and earth-
quake loading (NEQ).
Axial forces due to gravity loading can be obtained directly by conducting linear
elastic analysis, since it is assumed that there is no inelasticity when only gravity loads
act on the structure. Axial forces due to earthquake loading are bounded by the maxi-
mum shear forces that can be transmitted from the beams. Hence, it is suitable to calcu-
late the axial forces due to earthquake loading (NEQ) by conducting limit analysis.
In calculating the axial forces due to earthquake loading (NEQ) by limit analysis,
first all the beam-ends are assumed to yield in flexure, in agreement with the direction
of the lateral force. Since the axial forces due to gravity loading are available from lin-
ear elastic analysis, beam end moments due to gravity loading should be eliminated
from limit analysis. By eliminating the end moments due to gravity loading, reserve
capacity moment at a beam end is obtained as the difference between the moment ca-
pacity and the moment due to gravity loading. Beam-end shear forces are then calcu-
lated by considering the equilibrium of beams. Axial force in a column due to earth-
quake loading is calculated by using vertical equilibrium, from the free body diagram
of the considered column axis (Fig. 2). When masonry infill walls are modeled as
struts, vertical components of the strut forces should also be considered in the calcula-
tion of axial forces. Axial force capacities of the struts can be used as the strut forces.
The axial force in a column (N) is then calculated as the sum of NG and NEQ.
219
Shear
FX Force
Bending
Moment
FY
Interior
Column
NEQ
Figure 2. Calculation of axial forces in columns due to earthquake loading.
2.2.3 Calculation of the Moment Capacities of Columns (Step 3)

After calculation of the axial forces, moment capacities can be calculated by using the
interaction diagrams of the columns under biaxial bending. The moment capacity of a
column about an axis (McX or McY) depends on the level of the axial force and the ori-
entation of neutral axis, hence on the ratio of McX to McY (Fig. 3). In this study, the ra-
tio of McX to McY is assumed to be equal to the ratio of moments about X and Y axes
obtained from time history analysis at the maximum top story displacement.
N
n.a.
McY
Ni
Section at N =Ni
McX
McX McY
Figure 3. Interaction diagram under biaxial bending.
2.2.4 Calculation of BCCR Values at the Joints (Step 4)

Up to this stage, all the beam-ends were assumed to yield. However at the joints where
the columns are weaker than the beams, column-ends may yield which will prevent the
220
beam-ends to reach their capacities. In order to take this situation into consideration,
Beam-to-Column Capacity Ratios (BCCR) in X and Y directions are calculated for all
joints as the ratio of the sum of moment capacities of beam ends connecting to the joint
in the considered direction to the sum of moment capacities of column ends in the con-
sidered direction connecting to the joint (Fig. 4).
MCBN
MCBE
M CBN + M CBS
BCCR X =
MCCXU + M CCXU + M CCXB
MCCXB
MCBW M CBE + M CBW
BCCR Y =
MCCYU + MCCYB M CCYU + M CCYB
Y
MCBS
X
Figure 4. Beam-to-Column Capacity Ratios in X and Y directions.
2.2.5 Correction of beam end moments

The beam-end moments are modified according to BCCR values, where four different
cases can be considered.
1. If (BCCRX < 1 & BCCRY < 1), beam-end moments are not modified.
2. If (BCCRX > 1 & BCCRY < 1), moments at Y direction beam-ends are not
modified, moments at X direction beam-ends are calculated by dividing their
capacities by BCCRX.
3. If (BCCRX < 1 & BCCRY > 1), moments at Y direction beam-ends are calcu-
lated by dividing their capacities by BCCRY, moments at X direction beam-
ends are not modified.
4. If (BCCRX > 1 & BCCRY > 1), moments at Y direction beam-ends are calcu-
lated by dividing their capacities by BCCRY, moments at X direction beam-
ends are calculated by dividing their capacities by BCCRX.
2.2.6 Recalculation of Axial Forces and Moment Capacities of Columns and BCCR
Values
After the correction of beam end moments, axial forces and moment capacities of the
columns are then recalculated. Using the updated moment capacities of columns,
BCCR values are recalculated.
2.2.7 Decision on the Potential Yielding Member-Ends (Step 5)

According to BCCR values, the member-ends with yielding potential are determined,
where four cases exist.
1. If (BCCRX < 1 & BCCRY < 1), all beam ends,
2. If (BCCRX > 1 & BCCRY < 1), Y direction beam-ends and column-ends,
221
3. If (BCCRX < 1 & BCCRY > 1), X direction beam-ends and column-ends,
4. If (BCCRX < 1 & BCCRY < 1), column-ends are the potential yielding member
ends.
2.3 Determination of Yielding Member-End Distribution

An equivalent linear structure with reduced stiffness is obtained by combining the re-
sults of demand and capacity analysis. For this purpose, first flexural demand-to-
capacity ratios (DCR) are calculated at all the potential yielding member ends, by di-
viding the moments obtained from demand analysis with the moment capacities ob-
tained from capacity analysis. There is only one DCR value at a beam-end (bending
about horizontal axis); however, there are two DCR values at a column-end which are
DCRX (DCR about X axis) and DCRY (DCR about Y axis). Using the assumption that
the ratio of the moment capacity about X axis to the moment capacity about Y axis is
equal to the ratio of moments about X and Y axes obtained from time history analysis
at the maximum top story displacement, DCRX comes out to be equal to DCRY. In this
case, the two DCR values at a column-end reduce to one.
The final distribution of yielding member ends is determined by using the DCR val-
ues of the potential yielding member ends. If DCR value at a potential yielding mem-
ber end is larger than one, that member end is considered as yielding, else it is consid-
ered as nonyielding. In addition, bottom story column bases and column bases above
the basement are considered as yielding member ends if they have DCR values exceed-
ing one.
2.4 Equivalent Linear System with Reduced Stiffness and Increased Damping
After the determination of final yielding distribution, flexural stiffness of members
with yielding ends are reduced by reducing their moments of inertia (Table 1).
Table 1. Reductions in the moment of inertia for different cases.

Case I’
No yielding Icr
Yielding at one end Icr / 2 (1+1/DCRY)
Yielding at both ends Icr / MAX (DCRI, DCRJ)
I’: Reduced moment of inertia, Icr : cracked moment of inertia, DCRY : DCR of the yielding end,
DCRI : DCR at end I of the member, DCRJ : DCR at end J of the member
2.4.1 Determination of Equivalent Viscous Damping (Increased Damping) at Each

Mode
Miranda and Lin (2004) obtained a relationship between the strength ratio (R) and
equivalent damping using regression analyses (Equation 1).
⎛ 0.002 ⎞
ξeq = ξ0 + (R − 1)⎜ 0.02 + 2.4 ⎟ (1)
⎜ T0 ⎟⎠
⎝
222
where, ξ0 is the viscous damping ratio corresponding to the elastic system, T0 is the pe-
riod of the elastic system and ξeq is the equivalent damping ratio.
This equation may be used to determine the equivalent damping ratio at each mode.
What needs to be determined is the R value for each mode. R value at the nth mode is
calculated by using Equations 2 and 3.
PSa (T0n )
Rn = (2)
ηn g
Vbny
ηn =
(
L2n Mn g ) (3)
In the above equations, PSa (T0n) is the pseudo-spectral acceleration corresponding

to the period T0n, Vbny is the base shear capacity at the nth mode and Ln2/Mn is the mo-
dal mass at the nth mode.
To calculate the base shear capacity at each mode, the results of capacity analysis
may be used. As explained previously, the axial forces and moment capacities of
ground story columns are calculated as a result of the capacity analysis. Assuming that
all the ground story column bases yield, modal base shear capacities can be calculated
by considering the global equilibrium of the structure and by employing h n for each
mode (Fig. 5).
Vbny
hn
N EQ M
cap
Vbny
Figure 5. Calculation of modal base shear capacity by considering global equilibrium of the
structure.
2.5 Linear Elastic Analysis of the Equivalent System

As stated before, the internal moments (demands) at time steps corresponding to the
maximum displacements in +X, -X, +Y and -Y directions are obtained as a result of the
demand analysis. Hence, there are four demand cases. However, there are two different
capacity cases corresponding to a demand case, which is explained in the following
paragraph.
In the capacity analysis, axial forces due to earthquake loading are calculated by using
the shear forces that are transmitted from the beams. For the determination of shear
forces at the beam ends, the beam-end moments which are determined in accordance
223
with the direction of lateral loading are used. This situation introduces the importance
of the considered loading direction. For example, in order to calculate the DCR value
of a column for which the demand is obtained at the time step corresponding to the
maximum displacement in +Y direction, the moment capacity will be different for the
cases when loading direction is considered to be +Y, +X and +Y, -X. Hence, four dif-
ferent demand cases with two corresponding capacity cases for each constitute eight
different cases to be considered (Table 2).
Table 2. The cases considered in the equivalent linearization procedure.

CASE # DEMAND CAPACITY CASE # DEMAND CAPACITY
1 +Y +Y, +X 5 +X +Y, +X
2 +Y +Y, -X 6 +X -Y, +X
3 -Y -Y, +X 7 -X +Y, -X
4 -Y -Y, -X 8 -X -Y, -X
Reduced moment of inertia of a member is determined as the smallest moment of iner-

tia from the eight different cases. As the equivalent damping value of a mode, the larg-
est damping value obtained from the eight different cases is used.
Linear time history analysis of the structure with reduced stiffness and increased
damping is conducted and the resulting maximum chord rotations are obtained. Then,
these values are compared with the chord rotation limits in order to decide on the
member performances.
2.6 Seismic Performance Decision for the Building

Decision is made about the performance of the building under the considered ground
motion by examining the member performances.
3 DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDING AND THE TEST
The SPEAR building model was constructed to simulate an actual three-storey building
representing older constructions in southern European Countries like Greece, without
considering the basic principles of earthquake resistant design. In the design, only
gravity loads were considered, using the concrete design code of Greece implemented
between 1954 and 1995 (Negro et al. 2004).
Detailed information about the structural configuration, member sizes, material
properties, amount and detailing of reinforcement, the determination of input ground
motion, intensity and direction of the ground motion, the pre-test analytical model, sig-
nificance of the damage which occurred during transportation, the parameters em-
ployed in pseudo-dynamic testing can be found elsewhere (Jeong & Elnashai, 2005a, b,
Mola et al. 2004, Molina et al. 2004, Negro et al. 2004).
224
4 APPLICATION OF THE EQUIVALENT LINEARIZATION PROCEDURE ON

SPEAR FRAME
In the application of the equivalent linearization procedure, first an analytical model

composed of members with linear elastic force-deformation relationships is constructed
using the software SAP2000. The modulus of elasticity of concrete is considered to be
26400 MPa according to ACI-318 (2002). Cracked section moments of inertia are used
as 60% and 40% of the gross section moments of inertia for columns and beams re-
spectively. Effective flange width of T-beams is assumed to be the web width plus
14% of the clear span.
In the PsD testing of full-size structures, low-intensity tests are conducted before
the actual test in order to check the functioning of the hardware and software equip-
ment and to obtain information on the elastic properties of the structure. For such rea-
sons, a test with 0.02g PGA preceded the strong intensity testing (Negro et al. 2004).
Modal periods obtained from the analytical model are compared with the values
calculated from the 0.02g PGA test responses in Table 3. The calculated modal periods
are in good agreement with the test results. Although zero damping was implemented
in the PsD test (Molina et al. 2004), the modal damping ratios according to the 0.02g
test did not come out to be zero, possibly because of the hysteretic behavior of concrete
even in the low levels of excitation. The modal damping values obtained from the test
are directly used in the analytical model (Table 3). The interstory drifts calculated from
the analytical model at the mass centers of each story are compared with the test results
in Figure 6. It can be observed that the drifts are overestimated by the analytical model,
especially at the first story.
Table 3. Modal damping ratios and period values calculated from the test results and the modal
period values calculated by using the analytical model.
Period (sec) Damping (%) Period (sec) Damping (%)
Test Model Test Model
Mode # Test Result Mode # Test Result
Result Result Result Result
1 0.85 0.87 3.7 6 0.24 0.20 2.4
2 0.78 0.76 4.3 7 0.22 0.20 2.2
3 0.66 0.63 5.0 8 0.20 0.16 3.2
4 0.35 0.30 3.4 9 0.15 0.12 1.2
5 0.31 0.25 3.9
After the 0.02g PGA test, a second test with 0.15g PGA was conducted. Negro et al.
(2004) stated that only minor damage occurred after the 0.15g PGA test. Hence a third
test with 0.20g PGA was conducted finally. The equivalent linearization procedure is
applied to the SPEAR test building under the 0.20g PGA excitation. Although minor
damage was observed, there was period elongation after the 0.15g PGA test. In order to
reflect the global period elongation, the modulus of elasticity of concrete was reduced
to 70% in addition to the reductions in the moment of inertia values.
225
6 6
Interstorey drift (mm)

Test Test
4 4
Model Model
2 2
0 0
-2 -2
-4 -4
-6 -6
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) 1st storey interstorey drift in x dir. (b) 1st storey interstorey drift in y dir.
6 6
Test

4 Test
Model 4
2 Model
2
0 0
-2 -2
-4 -4
-6 -6
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
(c) 2nd storey interstorey drift in x dir. (d) 2nd storey interstorey drift in y dir.
6 6
4 Test Test
4
Model Model
2 2
0 0
-2 -2
-4 -4
-6 -6
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
(e) 3rd storey interstorey drift in x dir. (f) 3rd storey interstorey drift in y dir.
Figure 6. Comparison of interstorey drift histories of the 0.02g PGA test and the analytical
model at the center of mass.
Modal periods of the equivalent linear system are compared with the periods calcu-
lated according to 0.20g PGA test responses in Table 4. It is observed that the period
values of the equivalent linear system match the period values obtained from the ine-
lastic displacement time histories (test results) quite well.
In the application of the equivalent linearization procedure to the SPEAR test build-
ing, best results are obtained by employing 10% equivalent damping ratio for all the
modes. By coincidence, this finding is consistent with Akiyama’s (2004) statement that
the nonlinearity which corresponds to 10% damping ratio was found to represent the
averaging effect in practical structures.
The interstorey drifts calculated from the linear elastic time history analysis of the
equivalent linear model at the mass centers of each story are compared with the test re-
sults in Figure 7. As in the elastic case, the first story drift values are overestimated.
226
Possibly, this discrepancy is the continuation of the discrepancy in the previous elastic
analysis. Overestimation of first story drifts is in line with the soft first storey estima-
tion according to the evaluation results of FEMA-356 (ASCE, 2000) nonlinear static
procedure and New Zealand Building Authority Guidelines (Draft, 2002) displace-
ment-based procedure (Mola et al. 2004) and the pushover analysis results of Jeong
and Elnashai (2005).
Table 4. Comparison of modal periods of the equivalent linear system with those calculated by
using the 0.2g PGA test results.
Test Model Test Result / Test Model Test Result /
Mode Mode
Result Result Model Result Result Result Model Result
1 1.77 1.82 0.97 6 0.43 0.42 1.03
2 1.43 1.57 0.91 7 0.37 0.40 0.92
3 1.17 1.29 0.90 8 0.31 0.30 1.04
4 0.61 0.61 1.00 9 0.24 0.22 1.09
5 0.50 0.49 1.02
80 80
60 Test 60 Test
40 Model 40 Model
20 20
0 0
-20 -20
-40 -40
-60 -60
-80 -80
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
(a) 1st storey interstorey drift in x dir. (b) 1st storey interstorey drift in y dir.
80 80
60 Test 60 Test
40 Model 40 Model
20 20
0 0
-20 -20
-40 -40
-60 -60
-80
-80
0 5 10 15 20
0 5 10 15 20
(c) 2nd storey interstorey drift in x dir. (d) 2nd storey interstorey drift in y dir.
80 80
60 Test 60 Test
40 Model 40 Model
20 20
0 0
-20 -20
-40 -40
-60 -60
-80 -80
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
(e) 3rd storey interstorey drift in x dir. (f) 3rd storey interstorey drift in y dir.
Figure 7. Comparison of interstorey drift histories of the 0.2g PGA test and the analytical
model at the center of mass.
227
5 CONCLUSIONS
The SPEAR test frame is analyzed by using a capacity-based equivalent linearization

method, in which the predicted responses are obtained by conducting linear elastic dy-
namic analysis of an equivalent system with reduced stiffness and increased damping.
The period values of the equivalent linear system and the interstorey drift histories at
the center of mass are calculated with reasonable accuracy with reference to the calcu-
lated values. However the first storey interstorey drifts are overestimated both for
0.02g and 0.2g test results. This situation can be clarified by exploiting the pre-test
condition of the test structure with further precession.
REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (ACI). 2002. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Con-
crete (318-02) and Commentary (318R-02). Detroit.
Akiyama, H. 2004. Effective Periods of Highly Nonlinear Structures. Performance-Based
Seismic Design Concepts and Implementation, PEER Report 2004/05. Bled, Slovenia.
Elnashai, A. S. Papanikolaou, V. & Lee, D.-H. 2002. ZEUS-NL User Manual. Mid-America
Earthquake Center (MAE) Report.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2000. Prestandard and Commentary for
the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. FEMA-356.
Jeong, S.-H. & Elnashai, A. S. 2005a. Analytical Assessment of an Irregular RC Frame for
Full-scale 3D Pseudo-dynamic Testing — part I: Analytical Model Verification. Journal of
Earthquake Engineering 9(1), 95-128.
Jeong, S.-H. & Elnashai, A. S. 2005b. Analytical Assessment of an Irregular RC Frame for
Full-scale 3D Pseudo-dynamic Testing — part II: Condition Assessment and Test Deployment.
Journal of Earthquake Engineering 9(2), 265-285.
Miranda, E. and Lin, Y. 2004. Non-iterative Equivalent Linear Method For Displacement-
based Design. 13WCEE, Paper No. 3422, Vancouver, Canada.
Mola, E. Negro, P. Pinto, A.V. 2004. Evaluation of Current Approaches for the Analysis
and Design of Multi-storey Torsionally Unbalanced Frames. 13WCEE, Paper No. 3304, Van-
couver, Canada.
Molina, F. J. Buchet, P. Magonette, G. E. Hubert, O. Negro, P. 2004. Bidirectional Pseudo-
dynamic Technique for Testing a Three-storey Reinforced Concrete Building. 13WCEE, Paper
No. 75, Vancouver, Canada.
Negro, P. Mola, E. Molina, J. Magonette, G. 2004, Full Scale bi-directional PSD Testing of
a Torsionally Unbalanced Three Storey Non-seismic RC Frame. 13WCEE, Paper No. 968,
Vancouver, Canada.
New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering. 2002. The Assessment and Im-
provement of the Structural Performance of Earthquake Risk Buildings, Draft.
Wight, J.K. Burak B. Canbolat, B.A. & Liang X. 1999. Modeling and software issues for
pushover analysis of RC structures. U.S.-Japan Workshop on Performance-Based Earthquake
Engineering Methodology for Reinforced Concrete Building Structures, Maui, Hawaii, pp. 133-
143.
228
Seismic retrofitting techniques for concrete buildings
M.N. Fardis1, D. Biskinis1, A. Kosmopoulos1, S. Bousias1, A-L.Spathis1
1. Structures Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Patras, Greece
ABSTRACT: Rules and expressions are presented for the calculation of the flexural
strength, the secant stiffness to yielding and the cyclic deformation capacity of RC
members retrofitted with FRP or concrete jackets, including the case of lap splicing of
the longitudinal bars of the original member within the plastic hinge region. The rules,
developed for and adopted by Eurocode 8-Part 3, are confirmed by the Pseudodynamic
test of the 3-storey SPEAR test building, after FRP of concrete jacketing of columns.
1 INTRODUCTION
In the framework of the new generation of performance- and displacement-based

codes, such as Eurocode 8-Part 3 (CEN 2005), retrofit design requires knowledge of
important properties of the retrofitted members, such as their strength, secant stiffness
to yielding and cyclic deformation capacity, as a function of the parameters of the ret-
rofitting. On the basis of test results by the present or other authors, this paper quanti-
fies these properties for concrete jacketing and for wrapping of member ends with fi-
bre-reinforced polymers (FRPs), which are the member retrofitting techniques most
widely used, or most promising, respectively, for concrete buildings. The expressions
developed were used for the retrofit design and the pre-test seismic response analyses
of the 3-storey full-scale building Pseudodynamically tested before or after FRP- or
concrete-jacketing at the ELSA facility of the JRC within the SPEAR project.
2 PERFORMANCE-BASED SEISMIC RETROFITTING PER EUROCODE 8
2.1 Verification criteria for seismic assessment or retrofitting of concrete members

The recent European Standard for seismic assessment and retrofitting of existing build-
ings (CEN, 2005) adopts a fully performance-based approach. Three performance lev-
els (termed in the European tradition “Limit States”) are defined:
- “Near Collapse”. The structure is heavily damaged, with large permanent drifts
and little residual lateral strength or stiffness, but its vertical elements can still
carry the gravity loads. In the verifications, members may approach their ultimate
force or deformation capacities.
- “Significant Damage”. The structure is significantly damaged, may have moderate
permanent drifts, but retains some residual lateral strength and stiffness and its full
vertical load-bearing capacity. Verifications provide a margin against member
229
ultimate force or deformation capacities.

- “Damage Limitation”. Structural elements have no permanent deformations and
retain their full strength and stiffness. They are verified to remain elastic.
A displacement-based approach is applied, in which ductile mechanisms (i.e. RC
members in bending) are checked in terms of deformations. Chord rotations at member
ends are the main deformation measures for RC elements. As the analysis aims at cap-
turing member seismic deformation demands, it should be based on realistic values of
the member effective secant-to-yield rigidity. According to Eurocode 8-Part 3 (CEN
2005) the secant-to-yield rigidity at each end of a RC member, EIeff, may be computed
from the yield moment, My, and the chord rotation at yielding at that end, θy, as:
EIeff =MyLs/3θy (1)
where Ls is the shear span (moment-to-shear ratio) at that end.
For the three Limit States mentioned above, Annex A in Eurocode 8-Part 3 speci-
fies the performance requirements in Table 1 for members of concrete buildings. Flex-
ure is always considered as a ductile mechanism and checked in terms of deformations
- in this case in terms of chord-rotation demands at member ends, compared to the
chord rotation at yielding, θy, or to conservative estimates of the ultimate chord rota-
tion, θu. Shear is considered as a brittle mechanism and checked in terms of forces.
Annex A in (CEN 2005) gives rules and expressions for the calculation of the
mean value of the chord rotation at yielding, θy, or at ultimate, θu,m, as outlined in 2.2
below for members with continuous longitudinal reinforcement and in 2.3 for members
with lap-spliced longitudinal bars in the plastic hinge region. The shear resistance un-
der cyclic loading after flexural yielding, VR,EC8, is also given Annex A in Part 3 of
Eurocode 8, to supplement the relevant rules in Eurocode 2 that address only the shear
resistance in monotonic loading, VRd,EC2, and do not reflect the decrease in shear resis-
tance with the cyclic chord-rotation ductility demand.
Table 1. Criteria for assessment/retrofitting of concrete members in Eurocode - Part 3

Member Limited Damage Significant Damage Near Collapse
Ductile primary θE(1) ≤ 0.75θu,m-σ(3) θE(1) ≤ θu,m-σ(3)
Ductile secondary θE ≤ θy
(1) (2)
θE ≤ 0.75θu,m
(1) (4)
θE(1) ≤ θu,m(4)
Brittle primary VE,max ≤ VRd,EC2(5), VRd,EC8/1.15(6)
Brittle secondary VE,max ≤ VRm,EC2(7), VRm,EC8(7)
(1) θE: chord-rotation demand from the analysis.
(2) θy: chord-rotation at yielding, Eqs.(2), (3).
(3) θu,m-σ: mean-minus-standard deviation chord-rotation supply, θu,m-σ= θy+θplu,m/1.8,
with θy from Eqs.(2), (3) and θplu, from Eq.(4).
(4) θu,m: mean chord-rotation supply, θu,m=θy+θplu,m, with θy from Eqs.(2), (3) and θplu,
from Eq.(4).
(5) VRd,EC2: shear resistance before flexural yielding, given for monotonic loading in
Eurocode 2, using mean material strengths divided by partial factors of materials.
(6) VRd,EC8: cyclic shear resistance after flexural yielding (Biskinis et al 2004, CEN
2005), with mean material strengths divided by partial factors for materials.
(7) As in (5), (6) above, but using mean material strengths.
230
2.2 Flexural strength and effective stiffness of RC members without lap splicing in the
plastic hinge
The yield moment My of the end section of a concrete member with longitudinal bars
not lap-spliced in the vicinity of the end section may be determined, along with the
yield curvature, φy, from first principles (Panagiotakos and Fardis, 2001). The effective
stiffness to yielding at each end of such a member is determined for the shear span Ls
from Eq.(1), where the chord rotation at yielding at that end, θy, may be determined as
follows (Biskinis & Fardis 2004, CEN 2005):
• in beams or columns:
θ y = φ y (L s + aV z ) / 3 + 0.0013(1 + 1.5h / L s ) + 0.13φ y d bL f yL / fc
(2)
• in rectangular, T- or barbelled walls:
θ y = φ y (L s + aV z ) / 3 + 0.002(1 − 0.125L s / h ) + 0.13φ y d bL f yL / fc
(3)
where:
− fyL, fc are in MPa,
− h depth of cross-section,
− αVz = tension shift of bending moment diagram, with:
• z = length of internal lever arm (equal to the distance between tension and
compression in beams, columns, or walls with barbelled or T-section, or to
z=0.8h in walls with rectangular section),
• αV = 1 if shear cracking precedes flexural yielding at the end section (i.e. if the
value of My there exceeds the product of Ls times the shear resistance of the
member considered without shear reinforcement, VR,c),
• αV = 0 otherwise (i.e. if My<LsVR,c).
The 3rd term in Eqs.(1), (2) represents the fixed-end rotation due pull-out of the ten-
sion reinforcement from its development beyond the member end, and is omitted if
such pull-out is not physically possible (f.i., if the end of the longitudinal bars is fixed
at the end section). The diameter dbL of the tension reinforcement and the value of fc
along its anchorage beyond the end section of the member should be used in this term.
Eqs.(1), (2) were developed by the first two authors specifically for Part 3 of Euro-
code 8. For about 1500 tested beams or columns and 160 walls, they give a median of
1.0 for the ratio experimental-to-predicted chord rotation at yielding and a coefficient-
of-variation (C.o.V.) of 33.7% for the beams and columns and 32.2% for the walls.
2.3 Deformation capacity in flexure of RC members with continuous reinforcement
The flexure-controlled deformation capacity of a RC member is expressed in terms of
the plastic part, θupl of the ultimate chord rotation (total ultimate chord rotation, θu, mi-
nus value at yielding, θy) at the member end. An empirical expression was developed
by the first two authors for Eurocode 8-Part 3, for the value of θupl of members with
rectangular section, ductile hot-rolled or heat-treated ribbed longitudinal bars, possibil-
ity for slip of longitudinal bars from their anchorage beyond the end section and detail-
ing for earthquake resistance (including avoidance of lap splices in the plastic hinge):
231
⎛ f ⎞
⎜
yw ⎟⎟
0.35
⎜
⎜ αρ
0.3 sx f ⎟⎟
⎡ max(0.01, ω') ⎤ ⎞
0.2 ⎛ Ls
θ = 0.0145⋅ a
u
pl
⋅ ⎛⎜ 0.25ν ⎞⎟ ⋅ ⎢
wall ⎝ ⎠ ⎣ max(0.01, ω) ⎥⎦
( )
fc ⎜ ⎟
⎜h⎟
25
⎜⎜
⎝
c ⎟
⎠ (4)
⎝ ⎠
where units are MN and m, and:
− awall = 1 for beams or columns,
− awall = 0.6 for walls,
− ν= N/bhfc (with b denoting the width of the compression zone and the axial force
N being positive for compression),
− ω= ρfyL/fc, mechanical reinforcement ratio of tension longitudinal reinforcement
(including any longitudinal reinforcement between the two flanges),
− ω’= ρ’fyL/fc, mechanical reinforcement ratio of compression, reinforcement,
− ρsx= As/bwsh, transverse steel ratio parallel to the direction (x) of loading,
− α= (1 − s h /(2bo ) )(1 − s h /( 2ho ) )[1 − ∑i =1,nrestr bi2 /(6ho bo )] , confinement effectiveness
factor (Sheikh & Uzumeri 1982), with:
• bo, ho= dimensions of the confined core to the center of the hoop, and
• bi= spacing between centres of the nrestr longitudinal bars (index i) laterally
restrained by a stirrup corner or a cross-tie along the cross-section perimeter.
For monotonic loading, coefficient 0.016 in Eq.(4) should be replaced by 0.03. If
fixed-end rotation due pull-out of the tension reinforcement from its development be-
yond the member end is not physically possible, then the plastic part of the ultimate
chord rotation, θupl, monotonic or cyclic, should be divided by 1.625.
In 934 cyclic tests of members detailed for earthquake resistance, Eq.(4) gives a
median of 1.0 and a coefficient-of-variation of 38% for the ratio of experimental-to-
predicted cyclic chord rotation capacity, θu (plastic part, θupl, plus value at yielding, θy).
The corresponding values for about 300 monotonic tests of members regardless of de-
tailing are 1.0 for the median and 53.5% for the C.o.V. (Biskinis & Fardis, 2004).
For members with details not appropriate for earthquake resistance (e.g., not closed
stirrups), the right-hand-side of Eq.(4) should be multiplied by 0.825. In 42 cyclic tests
of members with ribbed bars not lap-spliced in the plastic hinge region, but without de-
tailing for earthquake resistance, this rule gives a median of 1.005 and a C.o.V. of
33.6% for the ratio of experimental-to-predicted cyclic chord rotation capacity, θu, i.e.
for the plastic part, θupl, plus the value at yielding, θy.
The results of the very few available tests on columns with smooth longitudinal
bars and 180o hooks suggest that the rules above may be applied also in that case.
2.4 Stiffness, flexural strength and deformation capacity of members with smooth
180o-hooked bars standard lap-spliced in the plastic hinge region
The results of the few available tests on columns with smooth bars (most of them per-
formed by the last two authors of this paper) suggest that the rules in 2.2 for the calcu-
lation of My and θy of members with rectangular section and ribbed longitudinal bars
without lapping, may also be used for columns with smooth longitudinal bars, even
when these bars are lapped from the end section on and over a length lo≥ 15dbL.
232
According to tests by the last two authors on rectangular columns with smooth lon-
gitudinal bars lapped from the end section up to a splice length lo≥ 15dbL, the plastic
cyclic chord rotation capacity given by the rules in 2.3 (cf. Eq.(4)) is reduced via:
− multiplication by 0.0035(60+min(50, lo/dbL))(1-lo/Ls), and
− subtraction of the lap length lo from the shear span Ls, as the ultimate condition is
controlled by the region right after the end of the lap.
In four cyclic tests performed by the last two authors on columns with lap-spliced
smooth bars, this rule gives a median of 0.9 for the ratio experimental-to-predicted cy-
clic chord rotation capacity and a C.o.V. of 30.4%.
2.5 Stiffness, flexural strength and deformation capacity of members with ribbed bars
and straight ends lap-spliced in the plastic hinge region
The test results on members with rectangular section and ribbed longitudinal bars with
straight ends lapped starting at the end section, show that in the calculation of:
− the yield moment My,
− the yield curvature φy in the 1st and 3rd terms of Eqs. (2) and (3) and of
− the plastic part of the cyclic chord rotation capacity, θupl,
the compression reinforcement ratio should be doubled over the value applying outside
the lap splice. Moreover, if the straight lap length lo is less than loy,min, given by:
loy,min=0.3dbLfyL/√fc, (5)
with fyL and fc in MPa, then My, φy, θu and θu should be calculated with the yield stress
pl
of the tensile longitudinal reinforcement, fyL, multiplied by lo/loy,min. In 81 tested col-

umns with lap splices, this set of rules gives a median of 1.005 for the ratio of experi-
mental-to-(the so)-predicted yield moment and a C.o.V. of 11.9%.
The 2nd term in the right-hand-side of Eqs.(2) and (3) for the chord rotation at
yielding should be multiplied by the ratio of the yield moment My as modified due to
the lap splicing, to the yield moment outside the lap splice. This rule gives a median of
0.975 and a C.o.V. of 23.3% for the ratio of experimental-to-predicted effective stiff-
ness at yielding in 61 rectangular columns with lap-spliced ribbed bars.
The tests to failure on members with rectangular section and ribbed longitudinal
bars with straight lap-spliced ends show that the plastic part of chord rotation capacity,
θupl, decreases with lo in proportion to lo/lou,min, if lo< lou,min, where lou,min is given by:
lou,min=dbLfyL/[(1.05+14.5αlρsxfyw/fc)√fc] (6)
where:
− fyL, fyw, fc (all in MPa), ρsx and dbL have been defined previously, and
− αl=(1-0.5sh/bo)(1-0.5sh/ho)nrestr/ntot, with
• sh: stirrup spacing,
• bo, ho: dimensions of the confined core to the hoop centerline,
• ntot: total number of longitudinal bars along the cross-section perimeter and
• nrestr: number of these bars laterally restrained by a stirrup corner or a cross-tie.
If lo is less than loy,min given by Eq. (5), the chord rotation at yielding, θy, to be added to
233
the so-computed θupl to obtain θu, should also account for the effect of lapping.
In the 40 available cyclic tests of members with lap length less than lou,min, the rule
above gives a median of 1.0 for the ratio of experimental-to-predicted to cyclic chord
rotation capacity, θupl, and a C.o.V. of this ratio of 31.3%.
3 FLEXURAL STRENGTH, STIFFNESS AND DEFORMATION CAPACITY OF

CONCRETE MEMBERS RETROFITTED WITH FRP-WRAPPING
3.1 Concrete members without lap splicing

According to the available tests on rectangular columns with ribbed or smooth longitu-
dinal bars and no lapping, in first approximation the value of My or θy may be assumed
to be unaffected by FRP wrapping of the member end. Better agreement with tests may
be obtained if My and θy are calculated based on the compressive strength of confined
concrete, fcc, instead of the uniaxial strength of unconfined concrete, fc. If this assump-
tion is made, the median ratio of experimental-to-predicted value of My in 116 tests of
members with FRP wrapping is equal to 1.04; the C.o.V. of this ratio is 18.8%. The
median of the experimental-to-predicted-ratio of effective stiffness at yielding in 109
tests is equal to 0.98 and its C.o.V. is 28%. Experimental results for My, θy and EIeff are
compared to the so-predicted values in Figures 1(a), (b) and (c), respectively.
The enhancement of deformation capacity of the member, θu, and the improvement
of any lap splices due to FRP sheets wrapped around the member end with the fibres
oriented along the perimeter, may be obtained as described below.
The member deformation capacity will profit from confinement by the FRP wrap-
ping of its end, provided that such wrapping extends up to a distance to the end section
which is sufficient to ensure that the yield moment My in the unwrapped part is not ex-
ceeded before the end section reaches its flexural strength, as this increases due to con-
finement by the FRP. If this condition is met, the increase of the plastic part of the
chord rotation capacity, θupl, may be determined by adding a term due to the FRP to the
term describing confinement by the transverse reinforcement, αρsxfyw/fc, where
ρsx=Asx/bwsh, fyw, fc and α were defined previously in connection with Eq. (3). The term
describing confinement by the FRP is αfff,eρf/fc where:
− ρf=2tf/bw is the transverse FRP ratio in the loading direction, x,
− ff,e=min(fu,f; εu,fEf)[1-0.7min(fu,f; εu,fEf)ρf/fc] is an effective FRP strength, with:
• fu,f, Ef: FRP strength and Modulus, and
• εu,f: limit strain, 0.015 for Carbon- or Aramid-FRP, or 0.02 for Glass FRP,
− αf=1-[(b-2R)2+(h-2R)2]/(3bh), is the FRP confinement effectiveness factor, with:
• b, h: full dimensions of the section, and
• R rounding radius at the corner.
This rule gives a median experimental-to-predicted chord rotation capacity in 90 cyclic
tests with Carbon- Aramid- or Glass-FRP equal to 1.005 and a C.o.V. of 31%. The ex-
perimental results for θu are compared to the so-predicted values in Figure 1(d).
234
2500 3
2.5
2000
2
My,exp (kNm)_
1500
θ y,exp(%) _
1.5
1000
500
0.5
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
(a) My,pred (kNm)
(b) θy,pred (%)
350 12
300
10
250
8
θ u,exp(%) _
200
EIexp
150
4
100
2
50 CFRP
GFRP
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
(c) EIpred (d) pl
θu +θy (%)
Figure 1. Comparison of experimental values of members with continuous ribbed bars and FRP
wrapping to value predicted according to 3.1 for: (a) My; (b) θy; (c) EIeff =MyLs/3θy; and (d) θu
(in (a)-(c), considering also the effect of confinement by the FRP on concrete strength).
3.2 FRP-wrapped concrete members with lap splices
The following rules were developed for members with rectangular section and:
- longitudinal bars lap-spliced over a length lo ≥ 15dbL, starting at the end section,
- FRP-wrapping of the end region over a length at least equal to 2lo/3.
For smooth bars with standard 180o hooks, the tests suggest that My, θy, θu may be
computed taking into account the FRP according to 3.1, but neglecting the lap splices.
For ribbed longitudinal bars with straight ends, My, φy, θy can be calculated accord-
ing to the 1st paragraph in 2.5, except that loy,min is now reduced to two-thirds of the
value given by Eq.(5) (i.e. to: loy,min= 0.2dbLfyL/√fc). In 20 tests of columns with such lap
splice regions wrapped with FRP, this rule gives a median of 1.065 and a C.o.V. of
9.2% for the ratio of experimental-to-predicted My and a median of 1.01 and a C.o.V.
of 22% for the ratio of experimental-to-predicted effective stiffness at yielding. Figures
2(a), (b) and (c) compare the experimental values of My My, θy and EIeff, respectively,
235
to the predicted value after the correction.

The rules of 2.5 were found to apply for the calculation of the plastic part of the
cyclic chord rotation capacity, θupl, as well, except that it is not possible to profit for
the same purpose from the benefits of confinement by the transverse bars and by the
FRP. More specifically, θupl may be estimated as:
- the value obtained according to 2.5 above, but considering confinement only by
the transverse bars (αρsxfyw/fc>0, αfff,eρf=0), times
- lo/lou,min, with lou,min estimated on the basis of the FRP alone, from Eq. (5) modified
to consider only the corner bars as restrained by the FRP, i.e αl,f=4/ntot:
lou,min=dbLfyL/[(1.05+14.5αl,fρfff,e/fc)√fc] (7)
1400 1.6
1.4
1200
1.2
1000
1
My,exp (kNm)
800
θ y,exp (%)
0.8
600
0.6
400
0.4
200 UoP test UoP test

0.2
other sources other sources
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 1.400 1.600
(a) My,pred (kNm)
(b) θy,pred (%)
240 6
220
200 5
180
160 4
140
θu,exp(%)
EIexp
120 3
100
80 2
60
40 1
UoP test UoP test
20
other sources other sources
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
(c) EIpred
(d) θu,pred (%)
Figure 2. Comparison of experimental values of members with lap-spliced ribbed bars and FRP
wrapping to value predicted according to 3.2 for: (a) My; (b) θy; (c) EIeff =MyLs/3θy; and (d) θu.
236
1.2 1.6
1.4
1
1.2
M y,exp / M y,th
0.8
θ y,exp / θ y,th
1
0.6 0.8
Present tests: no laps 15db deformed
0.6
0.4
15db plain 25db plain
30db plain 45db deformed 0.4
Other tests: continuous jacket bars discontinuous jacket bars
0.2
0.2
group average standard deviation of
0
group mean 0
2.2 1.6
2
1.4
1.8
1.6 1.2
1.4 θ u,exp / (θ u + θ*y)

1
EI exp / EI th
pl
1.2
0.8
1
0.8 0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0 - 1. 5 - 0. 5 0. 5 1. 5 2. 5 3. 5 4. 5 5. 5 6. 5 7. 5 8. 5 0
a b c d e f g h i j k
-1. 5 -0. 5 0. 5 1. 5 2. 5 3. 5 4. 5 5. 5 6. 5 7. 5 8. 5
a b c d e f g h i j k
Figure 3. Test results on RC-jacketed columns, with or without lap splices in original column,
compared to prediction for monolithic column (a: no treatment, predamage; b: roughened inter-
face, predamage; c: no treatment; d: roughened interface; e: dowels; f: roughened & dowels; g:
welded Z-bars; h: monolithic)
The ratio of experimental-to-predicted θu in 16 tested columns with lap-spliced ribbed

vertical bars and FRP wraps has a median of 0.995 and a C.o.V. of 21.6% (Fig. 2(d)).
4 FLEXURAL STRENGTH, STIFFNESS AND DEFORMATION CAPACITY OF

MEMBERS WITH RC JACKETS
The results of 14 tests by the two last authors on concrete-jacketed columns with or
without lap splices in the original column, along with 39 more tests in the literature, are
compared in Figure 3 to predictions according to the rules in 2.2 and 2.3 and the fol-
lowing additional assumptions (CEN 2005):
- the jacketed column behaves monolithically (full composite action of old and new
concrete);
- the fact that axial load was originally applied to the old column alone is disre-
garded, and the full axial load is taken to act on the jacketed element as a whole;
- the concrete properties of the jacket apply over the full section of the element.
Then, based on the average ratios of experimental-to-predicted values in Fig. 3, the
following relations were developed by the first two authors and adopted in (CEN 2005)
for the values of My*, θy*, θu* of the jacketed member, in terms of the values My, θy, θu
237
resulting from the assumptions above, regardless of any lap splicing of the vertical bars
in the original column:
- For My*: My*= My.
- For θy*:
1. for roughened interface, with or without other special measures to connect the
jacket to the old concrete: θy*=1.05θy;
2. for any measure to connect the jacket to the old concrete other than roughening,
or for no such measures: θy*=1.20θy.
- For θu*: θu*= θu
5 SEISMIC RESPONSE ANALYSES OF 3-STOREY SPEAR TEST BUILDING
Pre-test nonlinear time-history simulations were performed of the following PsD tests
of the 3-storey full-scale building at the ELSA/JRC facility within the SPEAR project:
Figure 4. Displacement t-histories of 3rd (left) and 2nd (right) floor in 0.15g-PsD test of unretro-
fitted SPEAR building, compared to predictions of analysis according to the recommendations
of (CEN 2005), including the rules in Section 2 of this paper.
- Unretrofitted structure under bidirectional motion scaled to a 0.15g PGA (Fig. 4);
- The same bidirectional motions, but scaled to a PGA of 0.2g applied to the test
structure after its retrofitting with FRPs as follows (Fig. 5, top):
• the ends of all 0.25m columns in all storeys were wrapped with two layers of
uni-directional GFRP over 0.6m from the face of the joint, for confinement;
• all four sides of the large (0.25x0.75 m) column were wrapped with two layers
of bi-directional GFRP over its full height for confinement and shear strength;
• the exterior faces of corner joints were strengthened in shear with two layers of
bi-directional GFRP, without continuity with the FRP wrapping of columns.
238
- The same motions scaled to a PGA of 0.2g applied after removal of the FRPs and
concrete jacketing of the central columns on the two adjacent exterior frames at
the flexible sides of the building, from 0.25m- to 0.40m-square, with three 16mm
bars along each side and a perimeter 10mm tie at 100mm centres (Fig. 5, bottom).
Figure 5. Displacement t-histories of 3rd (left) and 2nd (right) floor in 0.20g-PsD tests of SPEAR
building retrofitted with FRPs (top) or concrete jackets (bottom), vs. predictions of analyses ac-
cording to the rules in Sections 3 and 4 of the paper and to other recommendations in (CEN 2005)
Nonlinear dynamic analyses of the response of the tested structure to the input bidi-
rectional motion were performed, following the general relevant recommendations in
(CEN 2005), including the use of Eqs.(1)-(3) and of the relevant rules of Sections 2-4
for the calculation of the effective stiffness to yielding, and to the following additional
assumptions: (a) columns fixed at foundation level; (b) finite size of beam-column
joints; (c) P-∆ effects in columns; (d) point-hinge models for members, with a simpli-
239
fied Takeda model (bilinear envelope and no strength degradation with cycling). Per-
formance was evaluated through a damage ratio equal to the chord rotation demand-to-
(ultimate)capacity, that assumes the value 1.0 when the peak rotation demand reaches
the expected value of the capacity. The predictions, summarized in Figures 4-6, agree
well with the observed damage, as well as with the measured response (in the case of
the unretrofitted structure in Figure 4 and of the structure with the concrete jackets in
Figure 5 (right), at least until failure of a few column ends is predicted at about 12-13s
in the response, the effects of which cannot be captured by the analysis).
Figure 6. Damage ratios, equal to chord rotation demands from nonlinear t-history analysis ac-
cording to the recommendations in (CEN 2005), divided by ultimate chord rotation according to
Sects. 2 to 4 of this paper, for the SPEAR building tested: unretrofitted at 0.15g (left); FRP-
retrofitted at 0.20g (middle); retrofitted with concrete jackets at 0.20g (right).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The European Commission provided financial support to this research through project
SPEAR (contract No: G6RD-CT2001-00525) of its GROWTH programme.
REFERENCES
Biskinis, D.E. and Fardis, M.N. 2004. Cyclic strength and deformation capacity of RC
members, including members retrofitted for earthquake resistance, Proc. 5th intern. Ph.D
Symposium in Civil Engineering, Delft, 1125-1133. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Biskinis, D.E., Roupakias, G. and Fardis, M.N. 2004. Degradation of shear strength of RC
members with inelastic cyclic displacements, ACI Structural Journal, 101(6): 773-783.
CEN 2005. European Standard EN 1998-3: 2005. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for
earthquake resistance. Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings. Brussels.
Panagiotakos, T.B. and Fardis, M.N. 2001. Deformations of reinforced concrete members at
yielding and ultimate, ACI Structural Journal, 98(2): 135-148.
Sheikh, S.A. and Uzumeri, S.M. 1982. Analytical model for concrete confinement in tied
columns, Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, 108(ST12): 2703-2722.
240
Design of the FRP retrofit of the SPEAR structure
E. Cosenza1, M. Di Ludovico1, G. Manfredi1, A. Prota1.
1. Department of Structural Analysis and Design, University of Naples Federico II,

80125, Naples, ITALY
ABSTRACT: The opportunities provided by the use of Glass Fiber Reinforced

Polymer (GFRP) for the seismic retrofit of reinforced concrete (RC) structures were
assessed on a full-scale torsionally unbalanced three-storey frame structure. A series of
full-scale pseudo-dynamic (PsD) tests both on the ‘as built’ and the FRP retrofitted
full-scale structure have been carried out at the ELSA Laboratory of the Joint Research
Centre.
The retrofitting intervention design strategy selected was targeted to achieve a more
ductile and energy dissipating global performance of the structure by increasing the
ductility of columns and preventing brittle failure modes. Design criteria and calcula-
tion procedures adopted in order to pursue such objectives are herein presented and
discussed along with the main experimental outcomes of the tests on the ‘as built’ and
FRP retrofitted configurations.
Keywords: GFRP; full-scale; RC; seismic retrofit; biaxial bending; irregular.
1 INTRODUCTION
The most strictly connected aspect to the hazard in southern European countries is
represented by a number of existing RC structures under-designed or designed follow-
ing old codes and construction practice. Casualties and losses are mainly due to defi-
cient RC buildings not adequately designed for earthquake resistance. In the frame-
work of the SPEAR (Seismic PErformance Assessment and Rehabilitation) research
Project, specifically targeted at evaluation of current assessment and rehabilitation
methods and at development of new assessment and retrofitting techniques, a series of
full-scale pseudo-dynamic tests on a torsionally unbalanced three storey RC frame
structure have been carried out. The SPEAR structure represents a typical house unit in
most earthquake-prone areas of Europe in which the issues related to the plan-
irregularity, poor local detailing, scarcity of rebars, insufficient confinement and weak
joints combined with older construction practice are commonly found.
The full-scale RC structure was subjected to bi-directional pseudo-dynamic tests in the
ELSA laboratory of the Join Research Center (JRC) in Ispra (Italy). Two tests were
performed on the as-built structure under the Montenegro Herceg-Novi record scaled
to a PGA of 0.15g and 0.20g, respectively. After the damage, the structure was retrofit-
ted using GFRP laminates and then subjected to a new series of two tests with the same
input accelerogram selected for the ‘as built’ specimen but scaled to a peak ground ac-
celeration (PGA) value of 0.20g and 0.30g, respectively.
241
The experimental program aimed at two main objectives: 1) to improve the understand-
ing of the influence of plan-irregularity on the seismic response and 2) to assess the
opportunity of using composite materials as an effective technique for the seismic re-
pair of RC frames. The discussion of the former is out of the scopes of this paper; rele-
vant details can be found in Negro et al. (2004). The latter is herein discussed present-
ing the reasons, the bases and the calculations procedures followed for the design of
the GFRP retrofit along with the comparison between experimental performance of ‘as-
built’ and retrofitted structure.
2 REHABILITATION OF RC UNDERDESIGNED STRUCTURES WITH FRP
The seismic rehabilitation of existing underdesigned structures can be achieved by

means of different available techniques; the selection of a specific rehabilitation tech-
nique is generally made based on the deficiencies that the theoretical analysis or the
observed post-earthquake damage points out as well as economic considerations. The
strategy adopted in the full-scale tests described in following sections belongs to the
category of local modification of components pursued by installing FRP laminates.
The FRP technique provides several advantages over traditional methods such as RC or
steel profile jacketing and steel encasement that have been widely used in the past.
Laboratory outcomes confirmed the potential of FRP techniques for the upgrading of
RC columns (Bousias et al., 2004) and joints (Antonopoulos & Triantafillou, 2002;
Prota et al., 2004); the results obtained at element or subassemblage level were vali-
dated by tests on full-scale structures (Pantelides et al., 2004; Balsamo et al., 2005).
When FRP materials are used for seismic strengthening or rehabilitation of an existing
RC structure, its global deformation capacity can be improved either by increasing the
ductility of plastic hinges without their relocalization or establishing a correct hierar-
chy of strength by relocalizing the plastic hinges. Since the part of the SPEAR project
here discussed was focused on exploring the potential of a “light” rehabilitation inter-
vention, the strategy followed in the rehabilitation of the full-scale structure presented
in this paper was driven by the first of the two above mentioned options. Recalling that
for a given RC structure its global deformation capacity is governed by the plastic de-
formation capacity of its columns and beams, and that underdesigned structures gener-
ally lack of plastic deformation capacity of the columns, a “light” rehabilitation should
aim at increasing their confinement, thus boosting the ductility of the compressive con-
crete and the rotation capacity of the plastic hinges. For typical axial load levels, the
confinement of column ends has a strong influence on the cross-sectional ductility, but
does not affect significantly its strength; this means that column strengthening should
not modify the hierarchy of strength of the structure. However, in order to exploit the
full global deformation capacity of the structure, it is important to prevent brittle
mechanisms, such as shear failures that could be detrimental to the global performance.
Thus, it could be appropriate to increase the shear capacity of exterior beam-column
joints and shear walls by installing FRP laminates (Calvi et al., 2002).
242
3 DESCRIPTION OF THE STRUCTURE
The SPEAR structure represents a three-storey RC structure typical of old construc-

tions realized in southern European Countries without specific provisions for earth-
quake resistance. Its design aimed at obtaining a gravity load designed (GLD) frame
and was performed using the concrete design code enforced in Greece between 1954
and 1995 as well as both construction practice and materials typical of the early 70s.
The structure is regular in elevation with a storey height of 3 meters and 2.5 m clear
height of columns between the beams; it is non symmetric in both directions, with 2-
bay frames spanning from 3 to 6 meters. The plan layout is shown in Figure 1.
3m 5m 1m 0.7m
C5 C1 C2
B1 B2
5.5m
B11 B9 B7
6m
C9 B3
C3 B4 C4
5m
4m
B12 B10 B8
C6 B6 C7
B5
C8 x
y
Figure 1 - Plan view of the SPEAR structure
The concrete floor slabs are 150 mm thick, with bi-directional 8 mm smooth steel re-
bars, at 100, 200 or 400 mm spacing. The structure has the same reinforcement in the
beams and columns of each storey. Beam cross-sections are 250 mm wide and 500 mm
deep. They are reinforced by means of 12 and 20 mm smooth steel bars, both straight
and bent at 45 degrees angles, as typical in older practice; 8 mm smooth steel stirrups
have 200 mm spacing. The confinement provided by this arrangement is thus very low.
Eight out of the nine columns have a square 250 by 250 mm cross-section; the ninth
(column C6) has a rectangular cross-section of 250 by 750 mm, which makes it much
stiffer and stronger than the others along the Y direction which is the strong direction
for the whole structure. All columns have longitudinal reinforcement provided by 12
mm bars (4 in the corners of the square columns, 10 along the perimeter of the rectan-
gular one). Their longitudinal bars are lap-spliced over 400 mm at floor level. Column
stirrups are 8 mm spaced at 250 mm, which is equal to the column width, meaning that
the confinement effect is very low. The joints of the structure are one of its weakest
points: neither beam nor column stirrups continue into them, so that no confinement at
all is provided. Moreover, some of the beams directly intersect other beams (see joint
243
close to columns C3 and C4 in Figure 1) resulting in beam-to-beam joints without the

support of the column.
4 MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND TEST SETUP
The materials used for the structure were those typical of older practice: concrete
and steel bars design strengths were assumed equal to fc = 25 MPa and fy = 320 MPa,
respectively. With respect to FRP laminates, on top and bottom of each column, uniax-
ial GFRP laminates with density of 900 gr/m2, thickness of dry fibers of 0.48 mm/ply,
modulus of elasticity of 65.7 GPa, tensile strength of 1314 MPa and ultimate strain of
0.015 were used; for external joints together with the large column C6 at all storeys
and for the entire height, quadriaxial GFRP laminates with density of 1140 gr/m2,
thickness of dry fibers of 0.1096 mm/ply-direction, modulus of elasticity of 65.7 GPa,
tensile strength of 986 MPa and ultimate strain of 0.015 were used.
A bi-directional PsD technique was used both in the ‘as built’ and the FRP retrofitted
full-scale structure. The bi-directional PsD test consisted in the simultaneous applica-
tion of the longitudinal and the transverse components of the earthquake to the struc-
ture. Four actuators per storey with four associated control displacement transducers
were connected to the structure.
5 TESTING OF THE AS-BUILT STRUCTURE
In order to provide comprehensive experimental data for the investigation of the

structure, artificial accelerograms obtained from the Montenegro 1979 Herceg Novi
ground motion records were used as the input signal for the PsD tests. A series of pre-
liminary analyses were run to define the most appropriate direction of application for
the chosen signal. To maximize the effect of the torsion on the response, it was decided
to adopt the pair of signals that consisted in the application of the X signal component
in the –X direction of the reference system of Figure 1, and of the Y signal component
in the –Y direction of the same reference system. As the retrofit phase was intended to
consist into a light intervention, the appropriate intensity of PGA was chosen in order
to obtain a level of damage in the first round of test significant but not so severe as to
be beyond repair; thus, it was decided to run the first test in the ’as-built’ configuration
with a scaled PGA level of 0.15g. Since the inspection of the structure soon after the
test revealed that only minor damage had occurred for such PGA level, then one more
test at higher intensity of 0.2g PGA was run.
The results of the first round of tests showed that the major damage concerned the ends
of the square columns with crushing of concrete at all stories. The level of damage was
more significant at the second storey. For each floor the most damaged member was
column, where the effects of the torsion reflected by inclined cracks on the compres-
sive sides were observed. During tests, significant cracks opened on the tensile side of
the columns at the beam-column interface. The damage on the rectangular column C6
was less significant even though crushing of concrete and cracks at the interface with
244
beams were observed. Details about the experimental performance of the ‘as-built’
structure can be found in Negro et al. (2004).
6 DESIGN OF THE REHABILITATION WITH COMPOSITES
Once testing of the ‘as-built’ structure was completed, prior to laminates installa-
tion, unsound concrete was removed in all zones of the elements where crushing was
detected; then the original cross-sections were restored using a non-shrinking mortar.
In addition, all cracks caused by the first round of test were epoxy-injected. After that,
the structure was rehabilitated using GFRP laminates with uniaxial and quadriaxial (0°-
90°-±45°) fiber texture. Selection of fiber texture and retrofit design criteria were based
on deficiencies underlined by tests on the ‘as-built’ structure. The retrofit strategy was
focused on two main objectives, 1) increasing the global deformation capacity of the
structure and thus its dissipating global performance and 2) avoiding brittle collapses
modes. To pursue such objectives, the design of retrofit was aimed at optimizing the
benefits of the externally bonded FRP reinforcement along the direction of dominant
stresses by increasing 1) column confinement; 2) shear capacity of exterior beam-
column joints and 3) shear capacity of the rectangular column, C6. The design princi-
ples of the rehabilitation strategy are outlined in the following sections with reference
to each above mentioned aspect.
6.1 Columns confinement
In agreement with analytical predictions, tests on the ‘as-built’ structure highlighted
that both columns cross-sectional dimensions and amount of longitudinal steel rein-
forcement were inadequate to satisfy the demand generated by the biaxial bending as-
sociated to the axial load; the weak column-strong beam condition led to the formation
of plastic hinges in the columns. In order to provide a seismic retrofit of the structure, it
was decided to increase the ductility of the plastic hinges at column ends, rather than
establishing a correct hierarchy of strength by their relocalization.
Such objective was pursued by GFRP columns confinement that allows enhancing the
ultimate concrete compressive strain. This corresponds to an increase of curvature duc-
tility that, assuming a plastic hinge length not significantly affected by the retrofit in-
tervention, determines a proportional increase of the plastic hinge rotation capacity. As
design hypothesis, concrete stress-strain diagram it was assumed to be parabolic-
rectangular and calculations procedures usually adopted for uniaxial bending were ex-
tended to the case of biaxial bending.
Two approaches were investigated in order to compute the axial strain of FRP confined
member; first, calculations were carried out using the equation provided by Seible et al.
(1997):
2.8 ρ f ε
frp frp frp , rup
ε = 0.004 + (1)
f 'cc
cu
245
where the ultimate axial strain for FRP-confined concrete, εcu, is computed as a func-
tion of the FRP volumetric ratio, ρfrp, FRP tensile strength, ffrp and ultimate strain,
εfrp,rup and the compressive strength of the confined concrete, f’cc .
The results obtained were compared to those given by the equation provided by the lat-
est guideline developed by Italian National research Council, CNR-DT 200 (2004):
f
l , eff
ε = 0.0035 + 0.015
ccu f
cd (2)
where the ultimate axial strain for FRP-confined concrete, εccu, is computed as a func-
tion of the effective lateral confining pressure, fl,eff and the design compressive con-
crete, fcd.
The results provided by the latter approach were found to be more conservative, there-
fore this guideline was used for the retrofit design. The central column, C3, was se-
lected for calculations since it carries the maximum axial force due to the gravity loads
(P = 403 kN at first storey). In Table 1 theoretical results in terms of concrete ultimate
axial strain provided by equations (1) and (2), along with the ultimate curvature, for
one, two and three plies of uniaxial GFRP or CFRP confinement, with density of 900
gr/m2 and 300 gr/m2 and thickness of 0.48 mm/ply and 0.166 mm/ply, respectively, are
summarized; in the last column the percentage curvature increment with respect to the
original unconfined cross-section, ∆abs., is reported.
Ultimate CNR-DT200/2004
FRP
FRP FRP Strain Ultimate Curvature
volumetric Ultimate
type thickness Seible Strain Absolute
ratio Curvature
Eq. (1) Eq. (2) Increment
tf (mm) ρfrp εcu (%o) εccu (%o) χu (rad/mmx105) ∆abs. (%)
Original 0 0 3.50 3.50 2.334 0.00
1 GFRP ply 0.480 0.00768 12.99 8.71 6.627 184
2 GFRP plies 0.960 0.01536 20.18 10.87 8.407 260
3 GFRP plies 1.440 0.02304 25.97 12.52 9.767 318
1 CFRP ply 0.166 0.00266 9.16 8.47 6.429 175
2 CFRP plies 0.332 0.00531 14.27 10.52 8.119 248
3 CFRP plies 0.498 0.00797 18.35 12.10 9.421 304
Table 1- Influence of GFRP and CFRP confinement on concrete ultimate axial strain and
ultimate curvature.
In Figure 2, on the right side, the moment-curvature relationship with reference to the
original C3 column cross section (continuous line), under axial load acting at first sto-
rey due only to the gravity loads (P= 403 kN), is plotted; the dashed lines represents
the moment-curvature progress by adding one ply at a time of GFRP confinement. The
same graph is plotted in the left side of the diagram with respect to CFRP confinement.
Figure 2 shows that both GFRP and CFRP confinement causes a negligible increment
of cross-section ultimate moment (the ultimate moment goes from a value of Mu=
37.17 kNm in the original configuration up to value Mu= 37.81 kNm in the retrofitted
246
one either for GFRP or CFRP confinement); on the other hand, theoretical calculations
clearly highlight that with reference to the glass and carbon fibers selected, the curva-
ture increment is very significant but not substantially affected by the two different
kind of laminates analyzed.
40.00
ORIGINAL ORIGINAL
35.00
30.00
3 PLIES 2 PLIES 1 PLY 1 PLY 2 PLIES 3 PLIES

25.00
Moment (kNm)
CFRP UNI-AX 300 g/mq. GFRP UNI-AX 900 g/mq.

20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
10
-10 -88 6
-6 4
-4 2
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Curvature (rad/mmx105)
Figure 2 - Moment-curvature for original, GFRP and CFRP upgraded C3 column cross sec-
tion.
Once established that both materials were able to increase almost equally the ultimate
concrete axial strain and thus the ultimate curvature of the cross-section, considering
that in the case of interior application in buildings, durability performance is not the
driving design criterion, the choice of the fibers to be utilized was essentially governed
by economic evaluations. Comparing the application costs per square meter, it was cal-
culated that by using uniaxial glass fibers with density of 900 gr/m2, instead of uniaxial
carbon fibers with density of 300 gr/m2, the costs were reduced by a factor of about
30%; this was the reason for selecting glass laminates.
By using GFRP laminates, the percentage curvature increment goes from 184 % for
one GFRP ply installed and becomes about 260% and 318% for two and three GFRP
plies, respectively (see Table 1). Since the design goal was to achieve an ultimate strain
of FRP confined concrete greater than 0.010 (about three times the conventional one,
0.0035), two plies of GFRP with density of 900 gr/m2 were chosen as external rein-
forcement. Thus, the eight square columns were all confined at the top and bottom us-
ing 2 plies of GFRP uniaxial laminates having each a density of 900 gr/m2. At each
storey, the GFRP confinement was extended for 800 mm from the beam-column inter-
face; in some cases, such length was increased up to 1000 mm in order to account for
the more extended concrete damage. In every case the GFRP confinement was ex-
tended for a length greater than the effective plastic hinge length, about 400 mm, com-
puted following the expression given by the latest seismic guideline developed by the
Italian Department of Civil Protection, Ordinanza 3431 (2005).
247
6.2 Beam-column joints

In order to avoid that increasing the ductility of the columns cause the attainment of
shear strength of exterior joints, that is brittle and could be detrimental to the global
performance, further FRP was designed on beam-column joints corresponding to the
corner square columns C2, C5, C7 and C8. The original shear strength of the exterior
joints was computed by using equations provided by Ordinanza 3431 (2005).
Such seismic guideline, allows assessing the principal tensile stress of an exterior joint,
σnt, by using the following expression:
2 2
N ⎛ N ⎞ ⎛ Vn ⎞ (3)
σ nt = − ⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ ≤ 0 .3 f c
2 Ag ⎜ 2A ⎟ ⎜A ⎟
⎝ g ⎠ ⎝ g ⎠
where N, is the axial force in the upper column, Ag, is the horizontal joint area, Vn, is
the acting shear on the joint due to the contributions of both shear force on the upper
column and tensile reinforcement on the beam, and finally fc, is the compressive con-
crete strength.
By using such expression with first member equal to the second one, it was possible to
compute, with reference to each exterior joint of the structure, the horizontal ultimate
shear force and the corresponding shear strength, ν0,max, under which tensile joint fail-
ure is achieved. Theoretical results, in terms of original joint shear strength, ν0,max with
reference to the external joints, at first and second storey, along with the axial force
due only to gravity loads, are summarized in Table 2.
Original Joint GFRP Retrofitted joint
Exterior Axial
Flo- Shear shear strength νmax (Mpa)
joint co- Force
or strength
lumn N (N)
ν0,max (MPa) 1 ply 2 plies 3 plies
C5 57420 1.91 3.40 4.60 5.33
1st storey
C8 45720 1.83 3.33 4.49 5.26

C2 166540 2.50 3.72 4.87 5.77
C7 98510 2.15 3.60 4.75 5.46
C5 25430 1.69 3.33 4.48 5.26
2nd storey
C8 18660 1.64 3.27 4.38 5.22

C2 80130 2.04 3.44 4.59 5.41
C7 45900 1.83 3.40 4.53 5.45
Table 2 – Shear strength of the corners joints unstrengthened and GFRP retrofitted
Since theoretical simulations of the first round of tests predicted shear stresses on the
exterior joints comparable with those reported in Table 2 (i.e. 1.87 MPa and 2.01 MPa
versus 1.83 MPa and 2.50 MPa for exterior joint in correspondence of columns C8 and
C2 at first floor, respectively), as confirmed by shear cracks observed on joints after
the tests, it was decided to preserve the corners joints by installing FRP laminates.
The shear improvement provided by FRP laminates was assessed according to the ap-
proach proposed by Antonopoulos&Triantafillou (2002) that, based on equilibrium
considerations, allows following the possible states of the joint behavior up to failure.
248
Once geometric, bond and material properties are given and the acting axial forces are
evaluated, the equations provide the inclination of the principal tensile stress, θ, and
the shear stress, ν, corresponding to any given state of joint strains. The failure of the
FRP strengthened joint occurs when either concrete crushes (i.e., the principal com-
pressive stress attains the crushing strength of concrete) or FRP fails (i.e., the ultimate
stress is attained or debonding occurs). In order to take into account that increasing the
joint strains, the principal tensile stress, θ , change considerably, it was decided to up-
grade the exterior joints by using quadri-axial laminates; according to the columns ret-
rofit, glass fibers were chosen. As the Antonopoulos&Triantafillou (2002) model was
referred to uniaxial laminates, only fibers placed along the axial direction of columns
and beams and those having a component on them were taken into account for calcula-
tions. With those assumptions the Antonopoulos&Triantafillou (2002) model was used
to compute the shear improvement due to external FRP reinforcement. The amount of
the FRP needed on the joints was designed with reference to the weakest joint of the
structure in correspondence of column C8 (i.e. the original shear strength was 1.83
MPa and 1.64 MPa at first and second storey, respectively).The target design was to
improve its shear strength up to a value of at least 4.00 MPa, about 2.5 times more than
the original shear strength at second storey. With reference to the joint in correspon-
dence of column C8, at second floor (axial load P = 18860 N), Figure 3 shows the rela-
tionship between the inclination of the principal tensile stress, θ, and the shear stress, ν,
corresponding to any given state of joint strains for one ply of FRP reinforcement in-
stalled (continuous line) and its progress by adding one ply at time of GFRP quadri-
axial laminates up to three plies (dashed line).
50
GFRP QUADRI-AX 1140 g/mq.
45
40
Inclination of principal tensile stress (°)
35
30
25
ORIGINAL 1 Ply 2 Plies 3 Plies
SHEAR
20
STRENGTH
15
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Shear Stress ν (MPa)
Figure 3 – Principal tensile stress inclination – shear stress relationship for different amount
of external GFRP reinforcement.
It is noted that the theoretical failure mode was always concrete crushing, provided that
proper anchorage would be ensured to prevent FRP debonding. The figure clearly
249
shows that the amount of external FRP necessary to pursue the proposed target shear
strength was corresponding at two plies of GFRP quadriaxial laminates with density of
1140 g/m2. Checks were performed for all column/beam exterior joints at each floor in
order to verify that a value of shear strength at least equal to 4.00 MPa was achieved
with that amount of FRP material. The results in terms of shear strength, νmax, with ref-
erence to each exterior joint, obtained by installing one, two and three plies of quadri-
axial GFRP laminates having each a balanced density of 1140 gr/m2, were computed
and reported in the last three columns of Table 2. Table results confirm that, in every
case, two plies of GFRP laminates are adequate to achieve shear strength at least equal
to 4.00 MPa. Based on such evaluations, beam-column joints corresponding to the cor-
ner square columns (C2, C5, C7 and C8) were strengthened using 2 plies of quadriaxial
GFRP laminates having each a balanced density of 1140 gr/m2. This joint reinforce-
ment was extended on the beams by 200 mm on each side in order to U-wrap it and to
ensure a proper bond. Finally, to obtain a plastic hinge length of rehabilitated columns
comparable to that of those ‘as-built’, the external reinforcement on the joints was not
connected to the columns.
6.3 Column C6
Since rectangular column C6 has a sectional aspect ratio equal to 3, shear could
have controlled its behavior rather than flexure. For this reason, shear FRP retrofit it
was considered necessary. It was computed (by using CNR-DT (2004) provisions) that
totally wrapping of rectangular column C6 for its entire length with two plies of the
same quadri-axial GFRP laminates used for the above mentioned joints, was able to in-
crease the sectional shear strength by a factor of about 50% (i.e. the shear strength goes
from 196 kN taking into account the concrete and stirrups shear contribution only up to
a value of 286 kN by considering the GFRP effect). It is noted that only fibers placed
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the column and those having a component on
that direction were taken into account for calculations; thus, the same expressions pro-
vided for uni-axial laminates shear strengthening were used in calculations.
7 TESTS ON THE RETROFITTED STRUCTURE
Once FRP-retrofitted, the structure was first tested under the same input ground mo-
tion of the ‘as-built’ structure, with a PGA level of 0.20 g, to have a direct comparison
with the previously executed experiment, then with a PGA level of 0.30g. The experi-
mental behavior of the rehabilitated structure was very close to that expected according
to the rehabilitation design: 1) it was observed a very ductile behaviour of the columns
2) no brittle mechanisms occurred (i.e., shear failure or significant damage of joints).
The damage of the unstrengthened joints highlighted an incoming failure of beams due
to crushing of concrete and the initiation of a shear crack pattern of the joints them-
selves, whereas no visible damage were detected on the strengthened joints.
250
8 ‘AS BUILT’ VS RETROFITTED STRUCTURE COMPARISON
The experimental activity highlighted that the retrofitting intervention provided the
structure with a very significant supply of extra ductility, with respect to the ‘as built’
configuration, which was almost totally lacking the appropriate capacity to resist even
the 0.20g PGA level of excitation. The retrofitted structure was able, after the vertical
elements and the joints were wrapped with glass fibers, to withstand the higher (0.30g
PGA) level of excitation without exhibiting relevant damage. The maximum displace-
ments reached during the test on the retrofitted structure were around 160mm at the
second storey, with a roughly 50% increase with respect to the maximum values
reached during the test in the ‘as built’ configuration. A comparison between the
maximum values of absolute inter-storey drifts and shears achieved at each floor on
both round of tests for the ‘as-built’ and retrofitted structure in the weak direction X, is
reported in Table 3.
MAXIMUM I-S DRIFTS MAXIMUM I-S SHEARS
X-DIRECTION (mm) (TORQUES)
TEST X DIRECTION (kN)
FLOOR FLOOR FLOOR
FLOOR 1 FLOOR 2 FLOOR 3
1 2 3
0.15g ‘as built’ 15.0 36.2 24.2 176 161 126
0.20g ‘as built’ 24.5 57.1 35.8 193 165 110
0.20g Retrofitted 32.1 55.3 34.1 208 163 112
0.30g Retrofitted 59.3 106.0 63.5 190 168 123
Table 3 - Maximum absolute inter-storey drifts and shears (X direction).
Such table shows that a significant increment of absolute inter-storey drift was re-
corded at each floor comparing the value during the 0.3 PGA and 0.20 PGA tests; in
particular an increment of about 50% was recorded at the second storey in the weak di-
rection X (106.0mm vs 57.1mm). However, shear increment, with reference to the
same storey and direction, was equal to 2% if tests at 0.3 PGA and 0.2 PGA level of in-
tensity are compared (i.e. 168 kN in the FRP retrofitted configuration instead of 165
kN for the ‘as built’ one). Such results confirm the effectiveness of the proposed retro-
fit technique in increasing the global structure ductility without affecting its strength.
9 CONCLUSIONS
The paper discusses the retrofit design criteria and outlines the calculation proce-
dures in order to improve the seismic performance of a full-scale underdesigned irregu-
lar RC structure. The experimental results provided by the structure in the ‘as built’
and GFRP retrofitted configurations highlight the effectiveness of the FRP technique to
improve global performance of an undersigned RC structure in terms of ductility and
energy dissipating capacity. In the present case of study, such goal was achieved by
confining the columns ends and preventing brittle mechanisms (i.e. exterior joints and
rectangular column shear failure).The experimental activity confirms that FRP retrofit
could be designed according to the Italian guideline CNR-DT 200 (2004) even though
251
suggested formulas do not account for biaxial bending. The design expressions used
for the shear strengthening of exterior beam columns joints and of the rectangular col-
umn were found effective to quantify the GFRP laminates needed in order to enable the
structure to fully exploit its improved deformation capacity given by the increased duc-
tility of the FRP confined columns. The analysis of the results shows that the FRP ret-
rofit structure was able to withstand a level of excitation in two directions higher than
that applied to the ‘as built’ structure.
10 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The original design of the structure was provided by Professor Michael Fardis, from
University of Patras. The SPEAR consortium for the preliminary numerical analyses
and the whole staff of the ELSA Laboratory of the JRC, where the entire experimental
activity was carried out, are gratefully acknowledged. The retrofit of the structure was
supported by MAPEI S.p.a., Milano, Italy.
11 REFERENCES
Antonopulos C.P., Triantafillou T.C.2002. Analysis of FRP-Strengthened RC Beam-Column

Joints. ASCE Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 41-51.
Balsamo A., Colombo A., Manfredi G., Negro P., Prota, A.Seismic Behavior of a Full-scale RC
Frame Repaired using CFRP Laminates. Engineering Structures, in press.
Bousias S.N., Triantafillou T.C., Fardis M.N., Spathis L., O’Regan B.A.2004. Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer Retrofitting of Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Columns with or without Corro-
sion. ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 101, N 4, July.Aug. 2004, pp. 512-520.
Calvi G.M., Magenes G., Pampanin, S.2002.Relevance of Beam-Column Joint Damage and
Collapse in RC Frace Assessment. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 6, Special Is-
sue 1, 2002, pp. 75-100.
CNR-DT 200/2004. Istruzioni per la Progettazione, l’Esecuzione ed il Controllo di Interventi di
Consolidamenti di Intervento Statico mediante l’utilizzo di Compositi Fibrorinforzati.
Negro, P., Mola, E., Molina, F.J., Magonette, G. 2004. Full-Scale PsD Testing Of A Torsion-
ally Unbalanced Three-Storey Non-Seismic RC Frame. Proc. of 13th WCEE, Paper N. 968,
Vancouver, 2004
Ordinanza n. 3431, 3 maggio 2005, Ulteriori modifiche ed integrazioni all’ordinanza del Presi-
dente del Consiglio dei Ministri n. 3274 del 20 marzo 2003, recante ‘Primi elemnti in mate-
ria di criteri generali per la classificazionne sismica del territorio nazionale e di normative
tecniche per le costruzioni in zona sismica.
Pantelides C.P., Alameddine F., Sardo T. and Imbsen R. 2004. Seismic Retrofit of State Street
Bridge on Interstate 80. ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 4, July-August
2004, pp. 333-342.
Prota A., Nanni A., Manfredi G., Cosenza, E. 2004. Selective Upgrade of Underdesigned Rein-
forced Concrete Beam-Column Joints Using Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymers. ACI Struc-
tural Journal, Vol. 101, N 5, Sept.-Oct. 2004, pp. 699-707.
Seible, F., Priestly, M.J.N., Hegemier, G.A. & Innamorato, D. 1997. Seismic retrofit of RC col-
umns with continuous carbon fiber jackets. Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE,
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 52-62.
252
Seismic Assessment and Retrofitting of an S Shape
Building with Expansion Joints.
A. Plumier1, V. Denoël1, L. Sanchez1, C. Doneux1, V. Warnotte1, W. Van Alboom2
1
Department of Mechanics of Materials and Structures, University of Liege, Belgium
2
SECO, Technical Control bureau for Construction, rue d'Arlon, 53 1040 Brussels, Belgium
ABSTRACT: An elastic analysis of an existing 20-storey reinforced concrete moment

resisting frame divided in 3 blocks shows that beams supported on corbels of the
adjacent block at the expansion joint loose their support when each independent block
vibrate on its own under earthquake. Different reconnection hypothesis were
considered, ranging from fixing totally each block to the adjacent one to more flexible
options leaving some free relative move between blocks. An elastic modal
superposition followed by a pushover analysis considering the final reconnection
principle were made. The degrees of freedom of the joint reconnections were observed
to be an important parameter. The solution found leaves a free relative rotational move
between blocks and a flexible translational movement, so that forces at the connection
do not become uselessly high. The springs used (long tie rods) work essentially
elastically so that no permanent relative displacement exists between blocks after an
earthquake.
1 INTRODUCTION
Building collision, commonly called ‘pounding’, occurs during an earthquake

when, due to their different dynamic characteristics, adjacent buildings vibrate out of
phase and the at-rest separation is insufficient to accommodate their relative motions.
Pounding between adjacent structures such as buildings or bridges or between parts of
the same structure during major earthquakes has often been reported. Both high and
low-rise inadequately separated adjacent structures are susceptible to damages induced
by poundings.
In this work, an existing 20-storey reinforced concrete moment resisting frame
divided in 3 blocks was analysed (Figure 1). Due to the S-shape in plan of the building,
a three-dimensional analysis was necessary. Several irregularities exist: uneven floor
heights, a subsoil ramp and setbacks in higher levels of buildings.
In the direction perpendicular to the joint, when the blocks move one towards the
other, the joint allows a 50 mm displacement before pounding. When blocks move
apart, the joint allows a 100 mm move before the beams loose their support.
In the direction of the joint, due to the design of the expansion joint in plan view,
only a 50 mm relative longitudinal displacement is allowed when the displacement
perpendicular to the joint is less than 150 mm. The relative displacement is not
restrained when the relative displacement perpendicular to the joint is greater than 150
mm (Figure 2).
253
Figure 1. The S shape building and its 3 Units.
Figure 2. Plan view of the expansion joint. The design prevents important relative transverse
moves.
An investigation on the materials of the building shows that the quality of the
concrete and the steel re-bars is good and better than required in the design, with a
mean fc = 37 MPa and a 95% lower prediction of 25 MPa. The quality of the steel re-
bars was also correct, with yield strength a few percentage below the nominal value,
meaning a few percentage higher than the design value. Numerous pictures of the
construction stage allowed checking that the rebars had been placed in number and
position according to drawings. The infills in the frames are made of very low strength
concrete blocks. Due to this low strength, they have been ignored in models.
2 ASSESSMENT OF THE STRUCTURE BY LINEAR ELASTIC MODAL

SUPERPOSITION ANALYSIS
The first assessment of the structure is made using the linear elastic modal
superposition analysis, assuming a behaviour factor q = 2, as defined in Eurocode 8 for
irregular moment resisting frame structure. This required the construction of a
numerical model of each individual block of the structure, which was made using the
SAP2000 software. All action effects have been computed: axial force N and bending
254
moments M1 and M2 in all beams and columns, vertical and horizontal shear in all
beams and columns. These actions effects have been compared to the resistance of the
structural elements, taking into account the effect of interaction between N, M1 and
M2 on the elements resistance. A safety factor was established for all elements and all
types of member forces.
From this analysis, it can be concluded that the structure has 2 serious problems, but
also some positive aspects.
The first problem is that the structure is significantly under-designed, at least in a
standard design approach: many structural elements possess less than 20% of the
required resistance in a standard design process. Some facts however indicate that the
elasto-plastic behaviour of the structures might be good: “Factors of safety” in shear
(ratio strength/action effect in structural elements) are in general higher than those in
bending, which means that the building may offer a global ductile behaviour since
plastic bending would take place before fragile failures in shear. The main resisting
frames in the longitudinal direction are the interior ones; they could be a primary
resisting system, the façade frames being secondary, so that their bad design could be
without effect, if they are flexible enough to remain elastic during elasto-plastic
deformation of the interior frames. Non-linear elasto-plastic analysis made in the final
stage of the study will indeed demonstrate the ability of the building to resist
successfully the design earthquake and the absence of unacceptable weak points in the
reconnected structure, to determine the degree of structural damage (rotation
demand/supply ratios being used as damage indices).
The second problem are potential fall of many storeys in the vicinity of the expansion
joints: beams are supported on corbels over the expansion joints and the displacements
of one block, which reach 250 to 500 mm in the upper storeys, exceed by far the joint
clearance (50 mm) and the dimensions of the supporting corbels (100 mm). In addition
to pounding, the design earthquake as well as the service earthquake would lead to
beams loosing supports and floors falling in the vicinity of the expansion joints (Figure
3). However the computed displacements are in the normal range for a well-designed
structure. Moreover, the limitation of damages under the service earthquake (frequent
earthquake, expected to take place with higher probability during the life of the
structure) is also not a problem, since under the service earthquake (40% of the design
earthquake), the relative inter storey drift is between 0,08 % and 0,24 % of the storey
height, less than the limitation for brittle partitions (0,6 %).
Pounding may be acceptable, due to the fact that beams in adjacent blocks are at the
same levels, but separation of blocks and the consequent failure and fall down of rows
of rooms is unacceptable. The problem of too wide separations between the building
blocks during an earthquake has to be solved. One solution would consist in
duplicating the columns at the expansion joints, but this is difficult to achieve while
keeping the building in operation. Another solution consists in closing the joints in
order to prevent large relative displacements between the blocks. A proper “re-
connection” of the 3 blocks constituting the structure has been defined.
255
Figure 3. Beams loosing support at expansion joint.
3 ANALYSIS OF THE RECONNECTION PROBLEM

3.1 Introduction
Different characteristics of connection systems are tested numerically in order to select
the best option. Blocking the dilatation joints result in an increase in the hyperstaticity
(redundancy) of the building allowing a better redistribution of action effects in the
structure and reducing the risk of local mechanisms. But the stiffness of the structure
may also be increased, as it would work as a whole and not as three distinct parts. The
plot at Figure 4 shows the increase of periods in "Blocking Case (1)" defined
hereunder.
Figure 4. Comparison of the periods before and after reconnection.
256
Two steps have been realised in the analysis of the structure by numerical
modelling:
1. Two preliminary studies on the influence of the reconnection type and of the
distribution over the height of the structure.
2. The modelling of a set of situations, which appeared as best options for
detailed design of connections, provides better evaluation of the forces in the
connections.
3.2 Modelling of the connection
The deformation of the structure is expressed by the three displacements and the three
rotations at each node (six degrees of freedom per node)- see Figure 5. A perfect
blocking of the joints results in imposing the same displacements and rotations to both
sides of the cut. The hypothesis of perfect blocking means that the designed solution is
able to transfer axial forces, shear forces and bending moments (about a horizontal and
a vertical axis in the joint), which may be more than needed for the intended objective.
Figure 5. Representation of the six degrees of freedom at the nodes of the structure.
In the analysis, the various forces at points of interaction between blocks of the
building are evaluated. Concerning the bending moment about a horizontal axis
parallel to the joint, designing the assembly to transmit totally the beams bending
moments is more difficult and expensive than designing a system which behaves
essentially as a hinge, while it is not sure that designing the assembly to transmit
moments makes a great difference for what concerns the global behaviour of the
reunited structure. Both cases (perfect transmission and perfect hinges) are studied in
order to be able to decide.
3.3 Analysis of a reconnection applied over the complete width

A first study using dynamic elastic analysis (modal superposition) was realized for
different degrees of reconnection but with reconnection applied in the 4 lines of
longitudinal frames - see Figure 6. For practical reasons, the intervention should not be
257
carried out neither in the 18th storey nor in the lower 3 stories (just refurbished), nor at
the ceiling of the 17th storey to avoid disturbances during intervention.
Figure 6. Location of the connecting elements.

Several combinations of blocked stories with different imposed restraints have been
considered.
1. All stories blocked with perfect blockings (completely fixed);
2. All stories blocked with hinge blockings (hinges of horizontal axis);
3. Same as (1) but stories under 5th storey are not blocked;
4. Same as (1) but stories under 6th and over 17th are not blocked;
5. The blocked storeys are the 6th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 15th, 16th and 17th;
6. Like (1), without transmission of torsion through beams;
7. No bending or torsion moments transmitted.
From the analysis, it appears that:
− The bending restraint in the joint does not influence much (5% in average) the
distribution of the other internal forces.
− The maximum values of the internal forces are not very sensitive to the blocking
case, if comparable quantities are compared. There are stiff points in the lower
stories that modify significantly the distribution of the forces in the lower part of
the building, excepted for these particular zones, the maximum forces don’t vary
much from one case to another. The comparison of Blocking Cases (1) and (2) or
(6) or (7) shows that the important parameter is the equality of translational
displacements at the connecting nodes (2 horizontal, 1 vertical), not the degree of
connection. Transmitting local bending moments or torsion moments does not
change the axial and shear forces transmitted.
− The blocking case (5), imagined to satisfy the usage conditions, reveals two
advantages: the lower storeys are not reconnected, avoiding important concentrated
forces resulting from the stiff points; the number of reconnected storeys is reduced
in comparison to a complete reconnection (only 7 or 8 storeys out of the 18 storeys
are reconnected) even if the values of the reconnection forces at one storey
increase and are more difficult to transmit.
258
− The connection should be able to transmit as maximum values the following total
forces at one storey level (sum of the forces at 4 reconnecting points in the model)
: axial forces (tension and compression) of 3500 kN for joint 1( inside frame) and
2600 kN for joint 2 (façade frame); Horizontal shear forces of 2200 kN for joint 1
and 1000 kN for joint 2;Vertical shear forces of 900 kN for joint 1 and 700 kN for
joint 2; bending moment of ±1900 kN.m for joint 1 and ±1500 kN.m for joint 2, if
a reconnection including bending moment is planned. These orders of magnitude
of reconnection forces are manageable ones, meaning that reasonable design
solutions are possible.
The number of reconnected storey could still be reduced, coming down to only one
on every 3 storeys, but then the values of the reconnection forces at one storey would
increase and be more difficult to transmit. A detailed design is needed to decide.
3.4 Stresses in the concrete and in the rebars

The results indicate that the reconnection at 4 points (1 to 4 at Figure 6), which creates
a diaphragm with high continuous stiffness, "call" high bending moments of vertical
axis in the “beam” diaphragm. This generates high stresses in the section of the
diaphragm at the joint. A reconnection allowing a relative rotation of vertical axis
between blocks around a vertical axis would obviate these high bending stresses in the
diaphragm. Another potential positive influence of a “hinged” reconnection of blocks
may be the greater flexibility in that case than in a rigid reconnection. Increasing
periods of the structure would correspond to reduce pseudo acceleration and base
shear.
3.5 Analysis of a reconnection allowing relative rotations of blocks

Two different connecting cases are analysed:
- With the hinges positioned on the facade beams, on the interior side of the curve
for joint 1 and on the exterior side of the curve for joint 2.
- With the hinges positioned on the interior side of the curve for joint 1 and joint 2
(Figure 7).
Figure 7. “Hinged” reconnection with hinges positioned on the interior side of curves.
259
The results of the analysis indicate that:

1. Forces at the reconnection point are lower than in the case where all 4 points
are connected. The global reconnection forces are subsequently much lower
(about 3 times lower).
2. Forces at reconnection are lower when hinges are in the interior side of the
curves.
3. The relative displacements between points situated on both sides of the joints
are at most equal to 50mm, which is less than the 50mm clearance at the
expansion joints. These displacements are smaller if the hinge point is interior
to the structure. If the connecting point is 2, than the displacement is at most 33
mm.
Conclusion 1 corresponds to 2 facts. First, the choice of a “hinged” reconnection of
blocks brings the bending moment of vertical axis at the joint to zero, so that only axial
forces parallel and perpendicular to the joint exist. Secondly, the more flexible global
system has higher period, which reduces the global shear applied to the structure by the
earthquake.
Conclusion 2 probably corresponds to the fact that the reconnection at the interior
side involves less eccentricity in transmission of interaction forces, so that forces are
lower.
The relative displacements at the points which do not belong to the vertical
“hinged” reconnection are low, due to the fact that they are only a sub-product of
rotations at that “hinged” reconnection.
3.6 Levels at which the reconnections are made

All cases analysed in a second set of elastic analysis (modal superposition)
correspond to the hinged reconnection of Figure 8. This choice is justified by the fact
that this positioning correspond to the lower forces in the connections and by the fact
that the beams of the main earthquake resisting structure are the interior ones; also,
because these beams are connected to columns of big sections complying with “strong
columns- weak beams” design, reconnection is more favourable at interior beams than
at exterior ones.
Figure 8. Position of hinged reconnection in the refined evaluation of connections design forces.
260
Various hypotheses are tested concerning the storey levels where the reconnection
is applied. Three reasons explain this focus:
- The economy involves that reconnection is not realised at more storeys than
necessary;
- The owner of the building wishes to keep the building in use during the operation
of reconnection; so he does not wish intervention at levels which are public in the
daily use of the building; this is for instance the case for the lower storeys.
- Moreover, the owner does not wish to have reconnection done at some levels that
had been recently refurbished, because the reconnection operation would require
taking out part of that work.
The different reconnection cases considered are:
1. Storeys under the 5th storey are not reconnected. In the other storeys, there is
reconnection by means of a hinge transmitting axial force, vertical and horizontal
shear.
2. Stories under the 6th storey and over the 17th storey are not reconnected. In the
other storeys, there is reconnection by means of a hinge transmitting axial force,
vertical and horizontal shear.
3. Reconnection is realized at the 6th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 15th, 16th and 17th storey’s by
means of a hinge transmitting axial force, vertical and horizontal shear.
3.7 Interaction between blocks at corbels

The interaction between blocks of the building takes place:
− At the blockings defined above;
− At all the corbels (they are supports of the beams of the neighbouring block, when
the force transmitted is a compression).
However, as the force transmitted at the support can be tension or compression, the
case where no contact exists at the corbels needs also be studied. So, for each of the
blocking case defined above, two circumstances are studied:
− One in which the interaction between blocks of the building takes place only at the
blockings defined above and in the 6 ways defined above. There is no relation
between displacements at other points (corbels).
− One in which the interaction between blocks of the building takes place at the
blockings defined above, in the 6 ways defined above, and also at all the corbels,
where an equal vertical displacement is imposed.
The real behaviour at corbels is in between these 2 situations and consideration has
to be given to the results of both analyses in order to check resistances and
deformations.
3.8 Results of the analysis

The result of the analysis is a decision on the reconnection scheme selected. It
corresponds to the distribution of connecting devices. One example of distribution of
forces is given at Figure 9.
261
Figure 9. Distribution of tension forces in connection corresponding to reconnection scheme

(3).
The forces resulting from the bending moment of vertical axis between blocks exist
only if a bending resistance is provided. If the reconnecting system is a perfect hinge,
the bending moment of vertical axis between blocks is zero and only axial forces (N
and V) between blocks exist. It was concluded that the design of reconnection should
not provide bending resistance of vertical axis between blocks, which raise the
practical problem of making a civil engineering design of what should behave as a
vertical axis of rotation. A way to materialize this free relative rotation move between
blocks consist in connecting the 2 interiors frames over the expansion joints by means
of long rods connected to the concrete frame in such a way that they are activated in
tension only. Then, only one rod is active (in tension) in the presence of a rotation of
vertical axis at the joint. This rod slows down the separation move between blocks, but
does not interfere (in fact, create, a bending moment). Also to avoid carrying
compression at the expansion joints, the gaps in those joints are not filled with any
material. There can be a relative rotation (Figure 10) under seismic action: the hinge
point is at the connecting rod under tension and the relative movement is on the
"compression" side; there the existing gap is wide enough to allow for free relative
rotations between blocks of the value and displacement previously computed in the
first set of dynamic modal analysis. Also to avoid carrying compression at the
expansion joints, the gaps in those joints are not filled with any material.
The long rods are 5m long Dywidag bars. These ones have been selected because
they are provided with a special type of thread that does not create stress
concentrations in the bars, so that the rod connections are more resistant than the bars
themselves. This “capacity design” was retained to prevent failure in the rod in case
some yielding would take place. In principle, the design of the section is such that there
should not be such yielding, but this capacity design concept was thought necessary to
mitigate the uncertainties of the analysis.
262
move move
Figure 10. Principle of reconnection using long rods and how they achieve a “hinged”
connection. Force-Elongation curves of rods.
For axial forces perpendicular to the expansion joint: on the tension side, forces are
based on average values and on the compression side, the resistance is equal to zero.
For shear forces (parallel to the joint), a condition of 0 relative displacement is kept.
Figure 11. Connection of Dywidag rods to longitudinal beam.
Figure 12. Rods passing through transverse beam adjacent to expansion joint.
263
4 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS.
4.1 Peculiarity of Moment-Rotation relationships.
The linear modal superposition analysis failed to demonstrate the ability of the building
to resist successfully the design earthquake. A non linear analysis was needed to
achieve such a demonstration before any decision on the installation of a reconnection
system. It was decided to perform non linear static “pushover” analysis, using the well
referred FEMA 273 procedure.
Besides of the standard difficulties of this type of analysis in a structure comprising
7000 individual column and beam elements, a special feature of the structure had to be
considered. It was noted during the verification of the location of the plastic hinge at
the beam ends that reinforcement development lengths do not all meet ACI 318M-95
requirements: anchorage length are lower than the one required for a portion of the
total beam reinforcement, the rest being well anchored.
In the FEMA-273 document no such intermediate situation is foreseen: a plastic
hinge is either governed by pure flexural failure or by pure anchorage failure. It was
decided to define a behaviour intermediate between these 2 failure modes. A plastic
moment that corresponds to brittle failure mode was computed: once the bond failure
occurs, the resistance does not fall down to zero, but to a plastic moment that
corresponds to the reinforcement portion that comply with anchorage length
requirements (point B of Figure 13; as these reinforcement are continuous, the
hypothesis is licit. The rotation capacity at point C of the figure is obtained following
FEMA-273 for flexural failure mode. Between B and C, the behaviour is ductile. The
point C represents the steel failure of the well-anchored bars and at this point the
resistance falls down to zero. This representation of the local M-Φ relationship may
seem complicated, but is necessary: the higher resistance M has to be considered,
because if the beam is too strong, a “weak columns-strong beams” mechanism can take
place. Skipping this highest local resistance can then give a false impression about
ductility of the structure.
4.2 Results of the pushover analysis.
For each of the non-linear push-over analyses, a first output provided is a push over
analysis curve, relation between base shear and roof top displacement up to the
performance point. The performance point represents the maximum non-linear range
undergone by the building under the expected earthquake. The series of pushover
performed on a building reconnected with flexible connections were stopped at a
maximum roof displacement equal to 1.2 times the target displacement – see examples
at Figure 14. If any structural element looses its residual resistance, point D in Figure
13, before reaching 1.2 times the target displacement, it is considered that the structure
collapses and the analysis is stopped.
The non-linear push-over analyses provides a second series of output in term of
parameters :
264
- The base shear at first yield V1y and α1 multiplier of the horizontal loads that
produce the first yield of the structure.
- The design structural over-strength Ωd, ratio of design base shear Vd to first yield
base shear V1y
Ωd= α1y / αd αd = multiplier of horizontal load related with the design action
- µ = du / dy , ratio of ultimate to yield displacement.
- The behaviour factor q, approximated for long period structures as: q= µ Ωd αu / α1y
= µ αu / α d
- The global ductility supply, ultimate shear to design base shear ratios.
- PR or performance ratio is the ratio of computed to assumed behaviour factor; it
can be interpreted as the ratio between the response spectrum capacity to the coded
elastic response spectrum or the ratio of the maximum top displacement du to the
target displacement dtarget. A value higher than one means that the performance
objective is reached.
The push-over analysis also provides a list of the damaged elements and their level of
damage and drawings of the plastic mechanism at the performance point for the most
damaging cases.
Examples of pushover curves and the equivalent bilinear diagrams are shown at
Figures 14. The horizontal black line in these graphs represents the design base shear
Vd. Its value is equal to 34.000 kN.
M o m en t ro tatio n d iag ra m
(m ixtu re failu re m o d e )
1 A
B C
0.5
Moment
D
0
-0.0 3 -0.02 -0 .01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03
-0.5
-1
R o ta tio n
Figure 13. Moment-Rotation behaviour used in case of possible bond failure of part of the
reinforcements.
265
Figure 14. Examples of pushover curve of the structure with flexible reconnection.
Load Case Vd d tarjet dy Vy du Vu Vy/Vd µ q PR

SNFPU 34 000 0.49 0.27 58 874 0.59 72 665 1.73 2.22 3.84 1.20
SPFPU 34 000 0.49 0.27 65 172 0.59 77 740 2.29 2.18 4.98 1.20
FPSPU 34 000 0.49 0.24 55 790 0.56 69 132 2.03 2.36 4.80 1.15
FNSPU 34 000 0.49 0.25 55 007 0.59 67 156 1.98 2.39 4.73 1.20
FPSPM 34 000 0.49 0.26 39 612 0.59 47 817 1.41 2.28 3.21 1.20
SNFPM 34 000 0.49 0.27 40 996 0.58 49 833 1.47 2.15 3.15 1.19
FNSPM 34 000 0.49 0.25 38 320 0.59 46 651 1.37 2.37 3.25 1.20
SPSPM 34 000 0.49 0.28 42 065 0.59 50 693 1.49 2.07 3.09 1.20
Table 1. Results of pushover on structure reconnected by flexible connections.
4.3 Design forces in the reconnection system.
The pushover analysis were also used to compare rigid and flexible reconnections. In
Table 2, the maximum tension forces (F) in the connecting bars given by the pushover
analysis in the hypothesis of a rigid/flexible reconnection are provided, for one
particular joint (joint 1 or J1) and one particular horizontal position R2 of the
connection. R2 and R3 are respectively the internal and external positions of the two
central longitudinal beams perpendicular to the expansion joint. Three letters indicates
the vertical position, S11 meaning for instance storey 11.
The results clearly show that rigidity attracts forces and validates the option made of a
flexible reconnection using long rods. This type of connection contributes to a
reduction of the forces in the connections, probably because it reduces the asymmetry
of the building and the concentration of internal loads in some parts of the structure.
With the beneficial elongation of the flexible joint connections, the building performs
better than a fully continuous structure. It can be estimated that this is due in part to the
local flexibility of the connections. Because of their length, the bars can elongate
elastically up to 17,6 mm or 24,1 mm, depending on the connection considered. The
elongations in the bars are much lower than the 100 mm limiting value of relative
266
displacement allowed by the columns corbels. They range between 0 and a maximum
39 mm. Most of the connections (20 over 28) remain elastic for all loading cases. The 8
remaining connections are always those situated in the three lower or two upper
connected floors.
Connection at Joint1 Axial force in connection (kN) Axial force in connection (kN)
Connection in row R2 Case of rigid reconnection Case of flexible reconnection
J1R2 in R2 and in R3 in R2 and in R3
Storey S06 17373 2522
S07 6900 2106
S09 2469 490
S11 2007 560
S13 1733 584
S15 2092 1191
S16 1999 1485
S17 1986
Table 2. Axial forces in connections.
5 CONCLUSIONS
A practical case of interaction between adjacent buildings was studied. Different

reconnection hypothesis were considered, ranging from fixing totally each block to the
adjacent one to more flexible options leaving some free relative move between blocks.
The degrees of freedom of the joint reconnections were observed to be an important
parameter: an increase in stiffness could not be avoided, but it had to be defined in
order not to induce too high additional internal forces in the structure. The solution
found leaves a free relative rotational move between adjacent building blocks. This
avoids the need to reconnect the façade frames and to carry high forces at that place.
The relative translational move should not totally be prevented; some flexibility exists,
so that the forces at the connection between blocks do not become uselessly high. The
relative move has to be limited; thus the connection has to be springs. These springs
work essentially elastically, so that no or little permanent relative displacements exist
between blocks after an earthquake. Based on these concepts, an adapted reconnection
was defined. It uses long tie rods connecting the interior longitudinal frames of the
building. This reconnection, which need not be placed at every storey is now installed.
6 REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318M-95) and
Commentary (1995).
Eurocode 8 – ENV-1998 (year 1994).
NEHRP Guidelines and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings FEMA-273 (October
1997).
267
268
Retrofitting of a 1960 building using EC8 part 3
C. Z. Chrysostomou1
1. Higher Technical Institute, Nicosia, Cyprus
ABSTRACT: A building which was designed, detailed and constructed in 1960 in Cy-
prus for gravity loads only was selected as a case-study. All the necessary information
about the building was collected (drawings, calculations, present condition etc) and the
in-situ properties of the materials were obtained by laboratory testing. The capacity of
the structure was assessed using EC8 part 3 for gravity loads as well as earthquake
loads and was then retrofitted using the code provisions. The characteristics of the
structure, the collection of information and the gravity load assessment is reported
along with the earthquake load assessment and the retrofitting of the structure. The
conclusions of this study contributed to the proposal for EC8 part 3.
1 INTRODUCTION
Earthquake engineering has made considerable advances through the years. A great
amount of research effort has been dedicated in investigating failure mechanisms of
structures and proposing safer designs for dealing with the devastating effects of earth-
quakes. Most of this work applies to new structures which are only a small percentage
of the building stock around the world. The problem still remains with buildings that
were built with no provisions at all, or according to previous seismic design provisions
which lack the newly acquired knowledge.
One of the challenges of the earthquake engineering community is to provide eco-
nomic methodologies to the society and technical guidelines to engineers to deal with
the retrofitting of existing buildings. One such attempt is the proposal of Eurocode 8
part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings (CEN 2004), which has been recently
established as a European Standard.
The purpose of the work that is presented in this paper is to apply the provisions of
the code to assess the capacity and retrofit an existing reinforced concrete building that
was built in Cyprus in 1960 for gravity loads only. The work was performed within
the project Seismic Performance Assessment and Rehabilitation (SPEAR) which was
funded by the European Community under the ‘Competitive and Sustainable Growth’
Programme.
269
2 DESCRIPTION OF THE STRUCTURE
The building consists of three parts separated among them with expansion joints. In
the central part there is a stairway and an elevator. It has a ground floor and five sto-
reys. The plan dimensions are 35.65 m by 11.30 m.
The load bearing system of the structure consists of reinforced concrete frames po-
sitioned mainly in the transverse direction and connected in the longitudinal direction
mainly through the slab. It has a pile foundation. Each column is supported by two to
three piles which are connected by pile caps 0.75 m deep. The diameter of the piles is
about 0.45 m and their length is about 10-11 m. The pile caps are connected between
them with strong tie-beams that form a diaphragm at the foundation of the building.
The ground beams have dimensions 0.40 m by 0.40 to 0.60 m for the left and right
parts, while in the centre part their depth is 0.75 m.
The superstructure consists of horizontal and vertical reinforced concrete elements.
The horizontal elements are 0.15 m solid reinforced concrete slabs and reinforced con-
crete beams with cross-sections (in m) 0.25x0.75, 0.10x0.75, 0.25x0.60, 0.25x0.60,
0.30x0.50 and 0.35x0.50. The vertical elements are reinforced concrete columns. The
left and right parts of the building consist of four frames with three columns each
placed across the building. In the central part there are two edge frames with three
columns each and two frames in the middle with four columns each.
The infill walls are brick masonry infills. The drawings show that the ground floor
is a parking place. In its present state the ground floor has been converted into office
space. Many of the infills have been also replaced by lightweight partitions and most
of them are not within the plane of the frames.
Based on the visual inspection of the building it seems that it is in very good condi-
tion. There are no visible cracks either on the structural system or on the infills that
can lead to the conclusion that any part of the structure is under distress. It should be
noted that the structure was subjected to the three earthquakes that took place in Cy-
prus in 1995 (Ms 5.6), in 1996 (Ms 6.8) and in 1999 (Ms 5.3). Structures with similar
dynamic characteristics in the same region have suffered considerable damage. It was
also observed that the structure has been covered with marble in all four of its faces.
3 LABORATORY TESTING
It was decided to perform laboratory testing by extracting core samples from the beams
and columns of the structure to establish the concrete properties. It was not considered
necessary to test the reinforcement since at that period of time only mild steel was used
of yield strength 250 MPa and which appears both in the specification and the draw-
ings of the structure.
An effort was made to obtain samples from both columns and beams from each
level and each of the three parts of the building. It was assumed that the columns of
each floor were cast simultaneously but at different time than the beams and slabs. The
testing included also the determination of the concentrations of chlorites and sulfates,
as well as the depth of carbonation.
270
With regards to the salt concentrations the results were relatively good. There are
some samples that have shown values slightly higher than the acceptable limits, in par-
ticular for the chlorites, but the majority of the cases of the chemical analyses have
produced results within acceptable levels.
The depth of carbonation varies between 2.5 and 8.0 cm which shows that carbona-
tion has already reached the depth of the reinforcement (cover to reinforcement is
about 2.5 to 3.0 cm) which in the presence of moisture will start or has already started
the rusting process of the reinforcement. As it was mentioned above no visual evi-
dence of this has been observed in the building.
The test results for the columns are summarized in Table 1 and those for the beams
in Table 2. All the strengths reported are cube strengths.
Table 1 Test results for the columns of the structure

Cube strength of specimens Mean Value Stand. Devn 90% Strength
Sample
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
Ground
22.0 19.0 - 20.5 - -
floor
2nd floor 14.0 13.5 16.0 14.5 1.32 12.8
3rd floor 21.5 23.0 21.5 22.0 0.86 20.9
4th floor 14.0 12.5 10.5 12.3 1.75 10.1
5th floor 13.5 13.0 14.5 13.7 0.76 12.7
It should be noted that no specimens were taken from the 1st floor due to the pres-
ence of sensitive equipment that the owner did not want to be disturbed in any way.
Examination of the results in Table 1 shows that the cube strength of the columns for
the ground and 3rd floors is satisfactory and it is about the one expected considering the
reported mix design in the calculations and specification of the building. For the rest
of the floors concrete strength is rather low and creates a problem of non-uniform dis-
tribution of material properties of the structure.
Table 2 Test results for the slabs and beams of the structure
Cube strength of specimens Mean Value Stand. Devn 90% Strength
Sample
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
Ground
25.0 17.0 19.0 20.3 4.20 15.0
floor
2nd floor 10.5 11.5 - 11.0 - -
3rd floor 18.0 16.0 14.0 16.0 2.00 13.4
4th floor 10.0 14.0 10.0 11.3 2.31 8.4
5th floor 15.0 12.0 9.5 12.2 2.75 8.6
Similar to the columns the concrete strengths of the beams and slabs of the ground
and 3rd floors are satisfactory while for the rest of the floors it is rather low. It is inter-
esting to note that the pattern of non-uniformity for the beams is the same as that for
the columns.
From the test samples it was evident that the gradation of the concrete mix is poor
and in many of the samples there is evidence of poor compaction. This is expected
271
taking into consideration the casting procedures that were used in Cyprus at that period
of time. In addition, it can be speculated that increasing the number of the specimens
would have not improved the mean value of the concrete strength; therefore the above
strengths were considered as the in-situ strengths of concrete.
4 ASSESSMENT AND RETROFITTING OF THE STRUCTURE USING EC8
The left part of the structure (Figure 1), which as it was mentioned above is completely
separated from the other two parts by an expansion joint starting from the foundation
level, was used as a case study.
Figure 1 shows the plan view of the ground floor slab along with the column di-
mensions for the ground floor (GF), and the rest of the floors (1-5). The beam dimen-
sions for the ground floor slab and the rest of the floors are shown in Figures 2 and 3,
respectively. A perspective view is shown in Figure 4.
30x50 (GF) 30x50 30x50 30x50
25x50(1-5) 25x50 25x50 25x50
11.30 m
30x50 40x40(GF) 40x40 40x40

25x50 30x40(2) 30x40 30x30
30x30(3-5) 30x30
30x50 30x50 30x50 30x50

25x50 25x50 25x50 25x50
11.70 m
Figure 1. Plan view of the ground floor slab. The numbers indicate column dimensions.
25x90 25x90
25x75 25x75 25x75
25x75 25x75
25x75 25x75 25x75 25x75
10x75 10x75 10x75
Figure 2. Plan view of the ground floor slab. The numbers indicate beam dimensions.
272
10x75 10x75 10x75
25x75 25x75 25x75 25x75
25x75 25x75 25x75 25x75
10x75 10x75 10x75
Figure 3. Plan view of typical floor slab. The numbers indicate beam dimensions.
z
Figure 4. Perspective view of the structure.
4.1 Definition of ground accelerations and spectra for the limit states of EC8 part 3
According to EC8 part 3 (CEN 2004), three limit states are defined: the damage limi-
tation (DL), the significant damage (SD), and the near collapse (NC). For each one of
these limit states a reference ground acceleration should be defined. For the location of
the particular structure the following reference ground accelerations, αgR, have been
specified for the three limit states:
• DL: 0.10 g which corresponds to a recurrence period of 225 years
• SD: 0.15 g which corresponds to a recurrence period of 475 years
• NC: 0.20 g which corresponds to a recurrence period of 2475 years
Since the importance factor for this structure, γI, is specified as equal to 1, then the
ground accelerations, αg, for each of the limit states are equal to the reference ground
acceleration shown above.
Soil Type B of type 1 spectrum of EC8 was specified with S=1.2, TB=0.15s, TC=0.
5s, and TD=2s. The spectrum shape is shown in Figure 5 in normalized form.
273
Figure 5. Type 1 elastic response spectra of EC8 for ground types A to E (5% damping).
4.2 Definition of knowledge level
According to EC8 part 3 a knowledge level has to be determined, which controls the
type of analysis that can be used and the confidence factor (CF). The knowledge level
depends on the available information for the structure, the extent of inspection of the
geometry and the details, as well as on the extent of testing for obtaining the material
properties. These are summarized in Table 3 (which is Table 3.1 of the code).
For the case-study structure the geometry was obtained from original outline con-
struction drawings with sample visual survey, the details were established from incom-
plete original detailed construction drawings with limited in-situ inspection and the
material properties from original design specifications with limited in-situ testing. Ac-
cording then to Table 3, the knowledge level 2 is achieved for which all the methods of
analysis can be used and the confidence factor, CFKL2, is equal to 1.2. The definition
of the extent of inspection and testing are defined in Table 4, which corresponds to Ta-
ble 3.2 of EC8 part 3.
4.3 Assessment of the capacity of the structure
4.3.1 Knowledge level 2

In all the analyses that are reported here concrete strength of C16/20 was used for the
columns of the ground and 3rd floors and C12/15 for the rest of the columns. The con-
crete of the beams for the ground and 3rd floors was considered to be of class C12/15
and C10/12 for the rest of the floors.
The round bar mild steel reinforcement was considered to have yield strength of
250 MPa, as it is reported on the drawings and the specification.
In order to estimate the capacity of the existing structure, eight pushover analyses
have been performed using two load distributions; one triangular and the second uni-
form. Two analyses were performed in the longitudinal direction (positive and nega-
274
tive x-direction) and two in the transverse one (positive and negative z-direction) for
each one of the distributions. The results for all the analyses are shown in Table 5 and
Figure 6.
Table 3. Knowledge levels and methods of analysis (LF: Lateral Force procedure, MRS: Modal
Response Spectrum analysis) and confidence factors (CF) (Table 3.1 of EC8 part 3).
Table 4. Recommended minimum requirements for different levels of inspection and testing.
275
Table 5. Summary of results for the analysis for Normal Knowledge (KL2).
Base
Base Shear Equiva-
Teff Displ Shea Drif Coeffi- lent PG
Failure (sec . r t cient Displ. A
Distribution Type ) (m) (kN) (%) (%) (m) (g)
triangular-x SFC 3.29 0.385 325.8 1.98 2.94 0.298 0.40
triangular+x SFC 3.38 0.163 262.1 0.84 2.37 0.126 0.17
rectangular-x SFC 3.27 0.153 345.4 0.79 3.12 0.122 0.17
rectangu- SFC 3.34 0.122 331.0 0.63 2.99 0.096 0.13
lar+x
triangular-z SFC 2.04 0.059 444.6 0.30 4.02 0.044 0.06
triangular+z SFC 1.66 0.094 689.6 0.40 6.23 0.073 0.12
rectangular-z SFC 2.05 0.074 729.2 0.38 6.59 0.057 0.07
rectangular+z SFC 1.62 0.087 877.4 0.45 7.93 0.069 0.12
1200
Rectangular -z Rectangular +z
1000
Triangular -z Triangular +z
NC column
800 SD column
Base shear (kN)
DL column
SF column
600
Rectangular -x Rectangular +x
400 Triangular -x Triangular +x
200
0
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Displacement of control node (m)

Figure 6. Pushover curves for the assessment of the capacity of the structure.
In Table 5 triangular stands for the triangular distribution and rectangular for a uni-
form load distribution. The plus and minus x and z refer to the direction of application
of the load which corresponds to the x and z axes of the structure (Figure 4). In the
failure type, SFC stands for shear failure in a column. Teff is the effective period of the
structure which corresponds to the secant to yield period of the structure. The dis-
276
placement column corresponds to the displacement of the control node at the roof of
the structure, drift is the ratio of the roof displacement divided by the building height,
base shear coefficient is the ratio of the base shear to the weight of the structure,
equivalent displacement is the displacement of the equivalent single degree of freedom
system which is calculated by dividing the roof displacement by the participation fac-
tor corresponding to the given direction (Fajfar, 2000), and PGA is the peak ground
acceleration which is calculated in such a way that a given spectrum (in this case Soil
type B) is scaled so that for the effective period of the structure (which is considered to
be the elastic period) it gives displacement equal to the equivalent displacement.
The analyses have shown that the structure suffers from deficiency in shear capac-
ity, which occurs prior to reaching the rotational capacities of the columns, in all the
cases except for the case of the negative x-direction of the triangular distribution, in
which the first column shear-failure occurs between the SD and NC points of the curve
(See Figure 6).
From Table 5 it is obvious that the largest acceleration that the structure can with-
stand is 0.06g and it is obtained from the triangular distribution applied in the –z direc-
tion. This is depicted in Figure 7.
0.20
0.18 Type B soil demand curve for ag 0.06g

Capacity curve for Triang. distribution in -z direction
0.16 Capacity curve for Triang. distribution in +x direction
Column shear failure
0.14
0.12
Se (g)
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Sd (m)
Figure 7. Capacity-demand of equivalent sdof system.
4.3.2 Knowledge level 3

The analyses which were performed for Normal Knowledge Level (KL2) were re-
peated for Full Knowledge Level (KL3) to examine the effect of this parameter to the
results. Therefore, another set of eight pushover analyses have been performed using
two load distributions; one triangular and the second uniform. Two analyses were per-
formed in the longitudinal direction (positive and negative x-direction) and two in the
transverse one (positive and negative z-direction) for each one of the distributions.
The confidence factor for this level is CFKL3 = 1.0.
277
From the analysis results it seems that the change from one confidence level to the
other has minor effects to the rotational capacity of the members, but has notable ef-
fects on their shear capacity. The analyses have shown that the structure when loaded
in the x-direction doesn’t suffer any shear failure, prior to reaching the rotational ca-
pacity of the members. On the other hand, in the z-direction the structure still suffers
from shear failures which occur prior to rotational failures. For the triangular load dis-
tribution in both the –ve and +ve z-direction the shear capacity is reached prior to
reaching the rotational capacities of the columns. For the rectangular load the shear
failure occurs between the DL and SD points of the curve. The largest acceleration
that the structure can withstand is 0.07g (instead of 0.06g for KL2) and it is obtained
from the triangular distribution applied in the –z direction (same as before). The struc-
ture appears to be very soft in the x-direction (period variation from 3.27 s to 3.38 s as
before) and this results in accelerations even higher than before.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the knowledge factor does not affect signifi-
cantly the rotational capacities of the members, but it does change the shear capacities.
For this structure though, if a full knowledge is attained, the result will not be affected,
while the cost of the assessment will be considerably higher.
4.4 Retrofitting of the structure
The deficiency in shear that was indicated before can be removed by providing shear
capacity to the members. Local shear strengthening was applied first but since all of
the columns had the same deficiency, then it looked to be prudent to strengthen all the
columns. It was decided to jacket all the columns by increasing their size by 10cm in
each direction and using grade 16/20 concrete and 16 mm diameter reinforcement of
yield strength 500 N/mm2. In addition, the four corner columns were changed to 100
cm by 100 cm L-shape, with 40 cm thickness. In the analysis, the existing reinforce-
ment was ignored and it was assumed that the properties of the jacket apply for the
whole cross-section of the member, as it is suggested in the EC8 part 3.
1.0
Demand for 0.15g at 150% displacement of DL

0.9
Elastic capacity
Capacity
0.8 Demand for DL limit state 0.10g
NC limit for columns
0.7 SD limit for columns
DL limit for columns and 1st yield column
0.6 1st yield beam
Se (g)
0.5
0.4
0.3
ag= 0.15g
0.2
ag= 0.10g
0.1
0.0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24
Sd (m)
278
Figure 8. Capacity-demand for the DL limit state for the retrofitted structure.
According to Eurocode 1998 part 1, the structure should be checked at 150% of the
displacement of the control node. On checking whether the displacements correspond-
ing to accelerations 0.10g, 0.15g and 0.20g multiplied by 1.5 satisfy the DL, SD and
NC limit states, it was found that the latter two are violated.
1.0
Demand for 0.22g at 150% displacement of SD

0.9
Elastic capacity
Capacity
0.8 Demand for DL limit state 0.10g
0.6 1st yield beam
Se (g)
0.5
0.4
ag= 0.22g
0.3
ag= 0.15g
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24
Sd (m)
Figure 9. Capacity-demand for the SD limit state for the retrofitted structure.
1.0
0.9 Demand for 0.30g at 150% displacement of NC

Elastic capacity
Capacity
0.8
Demand for NC limit state 0.20g
0.6 1st yield beam
Se (g)
0.5
ag= 0.30g
0.4
ag= 0.20g
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24
Sd (m)
Figure 10. Capacity-demand for the NC limit state for the retrofitted structure.
279
Therefore, the reinforcement of the 4 corner columns was changed from Y16 to
Y20 and the structure was subjected to a load of 12.8% of its total weight in the +z di-
rection. The results of this analysis have shown that all three limit states are satisfied,
as shown in Figures 8 to 10.
5 CONCLUSIONS
Based on this pilot study the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. EC8 part 3 is a workable code that can guide the engineer through the assess-
ment and retrofit process
2. The knowledge level factor does not affect the capacities of ductile elements
but it changes significantly those of brittle elements. It may not be cost effec-
tive to try to move from KL2 to KL3
3. The nonlinear static method, provided it can be applied, gives a quantitative in-
sight in the assessment and retrofit process. The amount of calculations is con-
siderably larger compared to linear methods
4. A dedicated software is required for the application of the code, due to the con-
siderable amount of calculations needed in determining the deformations of all
the members and comparing them to the deformation capacities.
5. While the code can be used for the assessment and retrofit of a single structure,
it would be very costly to use this code for the screening of a large number of
buildings.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to acknowledge the contribution of the University of Patras for
the provision of the software ANSRuop for performing the analyses. Special thanks go
to Prof. M. N. Fardis for his invaluable co-operation and advice and to his graduate
student Antonis Kosmopoulos for providing support for the software.
REFERENCES
CEN – European Committee for Standardization 2004. prEN 1998-3 Eurocode 8: Design for
earthquake resistance, Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings draft no. 7, Brussels.
Fajfar, Peter 2000. Nonlinear analysis method for performance/based seismic design. Earth-
quake Spectra, Volume 16, No. 3: pp 573 – 592.
280
Building Vulnerability Reduction by Existing Techniques
and Near Fault Effects
M.H.Boduroglu1, E.Orakdöğen1, K.Girgin1
1.Istanbul Technical University, Civil Engineering Department, Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey
ABSTRACT: The seismic evaluation and the retrofit design of existing buildings due
to seismic loads is a very important problem of most of the earthquake prone countries.
In this paper, existing four and seven story RC buildings are evaluated according to the
1998 Earthquake Code of Turkey and found to be weak and strengthened by adding
shear walls and/or jacketing some columns, then results have been tested using ATC–
40 guidelines and the capacity spectrum method. Moreover, in order to see the effect of
near fault earthquakes, a nonlinear time history analysis has been carried out for seven
story building using five ground motions of recent earthquakes in Turkey. As a conclu-
sion, the buildings strengthened according to the code are over-designed and the near
fault effects have to be introduced to the existing Turkish Earthquake Code.
1 INTRODUCTION
Earthquake prone countries face the problem of evaluating and strengthening of large
number of existing buildings. The problem is especially important for reinforced
concrete buildings which have been built during the last sixty years according to the
existing codes of their times. Most of these early codes have considered the seismic
loads as some percentage of the total live and dead loads of the building. A linear and
approximate method of analysis has been used under this type of seismic load.
Experiences from the past earthquakes have shown that large earthquakes can severely
damage buildings causing inelastic behavior that dissipates energy. The last Turkish
Earthquake Code has been in effect since 1998. The previous one had been in effect
since 1975. Therefore most buildings designed according to 1975 and the earlier codes
need to be evaluated and strengthened. The question is at what level they have to be
strengthened. In this paper, the results of an investigation on two existing RC buildings
are presented.
2 COMPARISON OF 1975 AND 1998 TURKISH EARTHQUAKE CODES
In the 1975 Turkish Earthquake Code (TEC-1975), the equivalent seismic load is
evaluated using the following formula
281
F=CW (1)
in which W is the total weight and C is the seismic coefficient obtained from
C = Co K S I (2)
where Co is seismic coefficient of the region, K is the structural type coefficient, S is

the spectral coefficient evaluated by S = 1 / (0.8 + T – To ), and I is the importance
coefficient taken as 1.0 for the usual buildings.
In the 1998 Turkish Earthquake Code (TEC-1998) however, the equivalent seismic
load or the base shear is calculated using the following formula,
Vt = W Ao I S ( T ) / Ra ( T1 ) ≥ 0.10 Ao I W (3)
where Ao is the effective ground acceleration for the seismic zone, S ( T ) is the
spectral coefficient given by
S( T ) = 1+1.5 T/TA ( 0 ≤ T ≤ TA ) (4)
S( T ) = 2.5 ( TA< T ≤ TB ) (5)
0.8
S( T ) = 2.5 (TB/T) (T > TB ) (6)
in which TA and TB are corner periods of the spectrum related to local soil conditions
chosen as 0.15 sec and 0.60 sec respectively, Ra ( T1 ) is the load reduction factor
defined by
Ra(T) = 1.5 + ( R-1.5)T/TA ( 0 ≤ T ≤ TA ) (7)
Ra(T) = R (T > TA ) (8)
in which R is the structural behavior constant showing the ductility property of the
structure and is usually taken as 4 for the existing structure.
3 EVALUATION OF FOUR STORY EXISTING RC BUILDING
In this chapter, firstly, push-over analysis of a four-story existing RC building, Kesim

(2004), designed according to the 1975 Turkish Earthquake Code ( TEC-1975), is per-
formed for obtaining the push-over or capacity curve and performance point according
282
to ATC-40 (1996). The push-over analyze is performed by SAP2000 (2004) computer

program. Typical ground and normal story plans are given in Figure 1, total story
weights considered in the equivalent lateral load calculations, are given in Table 1,
equivalent lateral loads of the existing building according to the 1975 Turkish Earth-
quake Code are given in Table 2 and the parameters considered in the analysis are
given as in the following.
The building has a ground story in 3.1 m height and three normal stories in 2.85 m
heights each one and plan dimensions of the building are 12.20 m x 11.20 m. The coef-
ficients for the equivalent lateral load calculations are taken as effective ground accel-
eration, (Ao) = 0.40, intensity factor of design earthquake, E = 1.0, building importance
factor, (I) = 1.0, Soil class = Z4, characteristic spectral periods, TA = 0.20 sec, TB =
0.90 sec, fundamental periods of the building, Tx= 0.602 and Ty= 0.531 sec and struc-
tural behavior constant, (R) = 4 for existing and the strengthened buildings.
Figure 1. Typical story plan of the existing building
Table 1. Total story weights
Weight due to Live load Weight due to the Total story weight
Story
the dead loads reduction live loads (Wq) (Wi = Wg+ nWq)
#
(kN) factor (n) (kN) (kN)
3 1146.55 0.3 240.91 1218.83
2 1418.24 0.3 293.62 1506.33
1 1465.75 0.3 293.62 1553.83
G 1537.67 0.3 293.62 1625.76
Total weight of the building (W3+ W2 +W1 +WG) 5904.75
283
Table 2. Equivalent Lateral Loads for existing building
Equivalent Lateral Loads

Story #
Both Directions (TEC-1975) (kN)
3 200.87
2 187.52
1 130.79
Ground 71.30
The push-over analysis for the equivalent lateral loads according to the TEC-1975
could not be completed due to the insufficient longitudinal reinforcements of the col-
umns. It is concluded that the building is under-designed according to the TEC-1975
and it needs to be strengthened.
3.1. Strengthening of the existing building
The existing building is strengthened with five RC shear walls. Three of them are
placed in the direction “X” and two of them are placed in the direction “Y”. The RC
shear wall locations are chosen as to be the torsional effects are minimal. Shear walls
are placed also between the two existing neighboring columns and the columns are
jacketed. Moreover, new footings are designed for the shear walls. The typical story
plan of the strengthened building and the shear wall locations are shown in Figure 2.
Fundamental periods of the strengthened building in the directions of “X” and “Y” are
0.3035 sec and 0.2542 sec, respectively and the structural behavior constant is taken as
R=4 for both directions. Equivalent Lateral Loads considered in analysis and design,
are taken from the TEC-1998. The total storey weights and the Equivalent Lateral
Loads calculated according to the TEC-1998 are given in Table 3 and Table 4.
Figure 2. Typical story plan of the strengthened building and shear wall locations
284
Table 3. Total story weights
Total dead load Total Live Load Total story weight

Story #
g (kN) q (kN) (kN)
3 1187.13 240.91 1259.4
2 1548.6 293.62 1636.69
1 1585.05 293.62 1673.13
Ground 1661.03 293.62 1749.12
Table 4. Equivalent lateral loads according to the TEC-1998
Story lateral forces

Story #
( Directions “X” and “Y”) (kN)
3 521.6
2 511.9
1 353.5
Ground 192.8
Total Base Shear 1579.8
3.2. Base shear capacities of the strengthened building
Push-over analyses of the strengthened building are performed by SAP2000 and capac-
ity curves for the directions “X” and “Y”, are obtained. Base shear capacities and the
corresponding top story displacements in the directions “X” and “Y” are Vx=3372.26
kN, dx=0.0335 m and Vy=2938 kN, dy=0.0423 m.
It is seen from the pushover results that base shear capacities of the strengthened build-
ing are greater than the base shears taken from the TEC-1998 in both directions.
3.3. Determination of performance points of the strengthened building
In this paper, capacity spectrum method given in ATC-40, is utilized for obtaining the
performance points. Thus, capacity curves are transformed into capacity spectrum
curves in spectral acceleration-spectral displacement format and then reduced response
spectrum curves are drawn by using the formulas given in ATC-40. Effective damping
ratios are found as 8.3 % for direction “X” and 11.6 % for direction “Y”. The corre-
sponding reduction coefficients are calculated as SRA=0.8369, SRV=0.8754 and
SRA=0.7279, SRV=0.7909 for the directions “X” and “Y”, respectively. Finally, per-
formance point coordinates are obtained by intersecting the capacity spectrum curves
and reduced response spectrum curves as Sap=0.565, Sdp=0.0143 for direction “X” and
Sap=0.559, Sdp=0.0120 for direction “Y”.
Capacity spectrum curves, response spectrum curves with 5 % damping and re-
duced response spectrum curves in directions “X” and “Y” are shown in Figure 3 and
Figure 4, respectively.
285
1.20
1.00 PERFORMANCE POINT
0.80
(Sa)
5% DAMPING
0.60
0.40
8.3% DAMPING
0.20
0.00
0.0000
0.0031
0.0063
0.0094
0.0125
0.0156
0.0188
0.0219
0.0253
0.0292
0.0331
0.0370
0.0409
0.0449
0.0488
0.0527
SPECTRAL DISPLACEMENT (Sd)
Figure 3. Performance point in direction “X”
1.20
1.00
PERFORMANCE POINT
0.80
0.60
(Sa)
5% DAMPING
0.40
0.20 11.6% DAMPING
0.00
0.0000
0.0035
0.0074
0.0114
0.0154
0.0193
0.0233
0.0272
0.0310
0.0345
0.0381
0.0417
0.0453
0.0488
0.0524
0.0560
SPECTRAL DISPLACEMENT (Sd)
Figure 4. Performance point in direction “Y”
According to the obtained spectral displacements, strengthened building is found to

be in collapse prevention range for the design earthquake in both directions.
4 EVALUATION OF SEVEN STORY EXISTING RC BUILDING
In the analysis of the seven story building, Ayan (2003), the base shear is calculated as
14% and 17 % of the weight in the “X” and “Y” directions, respectively. For different
load combinations, the story drifts calculated according to the TEC-1998 are given in
Tables 5 and 6. Most of these values exceed the code limited value of 0.0035 in the di-
rection “X” and also the ultimate strengths of some columns are being exceeded.
286
Therefore the building needs to be strengthened. Typical story plan and RC shear wall
locations is shown in Figure 5.
Table 5. Storey dirfts in the “X” direction for the existing building
Relative story displacements (x10-3)

Loading Stories
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1.4DL+1.6LL+EX 3.42 5.44 4.31 3.61 3.89 3.47 2.42
1.4DL+1.6LL-EX 3.42 5.44 4.31 3.61 3.89 3.47 2.42
0.9DL + EX 3.42 5.44 4.31 3.61 3.89 3.47 2.42
0.9DL – EX 3.42 5.44 4.31 3.61 3.89 3.47 2.42
Table 6. Storey dirfts in the “Y” direction for the existing building
Relative story displacements (x10-3)

Loading Stories
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1.4DL+1.6LL+EY 1.95 3.02 2.81 2.56 2.49 1.96 1.30
1.4DL+1.6LL-EY 1.95 3.02 2.81 2.56 2.49 1.96 1.30
0.9DL + EY 1.95 3.02 2.81 2.56 2.49 1.96 1.30
0.9DL – EY 1.95 3.02 2.81 2.56 2.49 1.96 1.30
Figure 5. Typical story plan and shear wall locations of the 7 story strengthened
building
4.1. Nonlinear analyses of the existing and strengthened buildings
4.1.1. Existing building
Using the basic procedure of ATC-40, a static pushover analysis is performed on the
existing structure utilizing the SAP 2000 software different load patterns are applied.
These are the loading distributions with respect to the first mode, unit load, triangular
287
load, and unit acceleration load. Capacity spectrum method yields no performance
point for the existing structure as expected.
4.1.2. Strengthened building
For the strengthened building shown in Figure 5, pushover analysis is performed with
similar load distributions. Modified capacity curves are shown in Figure 6 in direction
“X” for different loadings. Since the structure is being strengthened using the TEC-
1998, it might be seen as if it were over-designed. The building has a factor of safety
between 2.70 and 3.36 for the base shear. For testing the validity of the 2D model,
another pushover analysis is carried out using 3D model. The results are shown in
Figure 7 and Figure 8 for a unit load and triangular load distributions. It is shown from
the analyses that approximations are acceptable. Comparison of capacity curves using
2D and 3D models is shown in Figure 9 Performance study revealed that the building
as a whole has an immediate occupancy level but having two columns with life safety
level.
Figure 6. Modified pushover curves for the strengthened building in direction “X”
Figure 7. Modified pushover curves for the strengthened 2-D model
288
Figure 8. Comparison of capacity curves using 2D and 3D models
4.2. Nonlinear time history analysis of the strengthened building
A nonlinear time history analysis is carried out to determine the effectiveness of the
traditional code basis and the static pushover analysis results and to study the effect of
near field earthquakes. For the nonlinear analysis, SAP 2000 is utilized with the
Wilson -θ numerical integration method. Five recent earthquake records are used given
in Table 7. For the soil classes B and C the average shear wave velocities are about 360
- 750 m/sec and 180 – 360 m/sec, respectively.
Table 7. Properties of the earthquake records
Earthquake Date Record S.C. M.A. D.F. T.S. A.D.

Erzincan
Erzincan 1992 C 486 2 0.005 0 – 20
(EW)
Duzce
Kocaeli 1999 C 353 12.7 0.01 0 – 25
(EW)
Sakarya 30 –
Kocaeli 1999 B 369 3.1 0.01
(EW) 55
Duzce
Duzce 1999 C 525 8.2 0.005 0 – 25
(EW)
S.C : Soil Class, M.A. : Maximum Acceleration (cm/sec2), D.F. : Distance to Fault
(km), T.S. : Time Step (sec), A.D. : Applied Duration (sec)
289
4.3. Nonlinear analysis of the strengthened 7 story building
In the first analysis these record have been scaled down to give a maximum ground
acceleration of 0.30g. For the strengthened building three scaled down acceleration
records are used. The results obtained are shown in Table 8.
Table 8. Nonlinear analysis with scaled down acceleration records
Kocaeli –
Duzce – Duzce Duzce - Bolu
Duzce
Max. Base Shear ( 10 kN) 1563 1177 1325
Max. Roof
4.265 3.210 3.785
Displacement(cm)
Max. Interstory Drift 0,00268 0.00207 0.00227
The three earthquakes give different base shears but all within the capacity curves.
The maximum total drift for immediate occupancy requires a value of 0.01. The
interstory drift values are less than this value of 0.01. Therefore the building
performance is at immediate occupancy level for all three earthquakes.
4.4. Nonlinear analysis for near fault effects on strengthened building
Five earthquake acceleration records are used to study the near fault effects for the
nonlinear analysis of the strengthened building. The results obtained are summarized in
Table 9. The maximum base shear and the maximum roof displacement occur for the
acceleration record of Bolu Earthquake with the maximum acceleration value among
the five records. The maximum story displacements due to five records are given in
Table 9 and the plastic hinge developments due to these earthquakes are summarized in
Table 10.
Table 9. The maximum base shear and the maximum roof displacements
Earthquake Max. Base Max. Roof Max. Interstory

Record Shear (10KN) Displacement (cm) Drift
Erzincan 2105 5.695 0.00359
Kocaeli – Duzce 1834 5.129 0.00320
Kocaeli – Sakarya 1339 3.153 0.00190
Duzce – Duzce 1937 5.858 0.00366
Duzce – Bolu 2789 11.050 0.00774
The interstory drifts due to both the scaled down and normal records of four
290
earthquakes are given in Figure 9. The Bolu record of Duzce Earthquake (Duzce –
Bolu) gives the maximum interstory drifts. This is mainly due to the impulsive
character of the earthquake.
Figure 9. Story displacements from the nonlinear analysis for near fault effects
Table 10. Plastic Hinge Developments due to Near Field Earthquakes
Earthquake Explanation
Erzincan One shear wall up to second floor and two shear walls in
the first floor
Kocaeli – Duzce All three shear walls in the first floor
Kocaeli – No plastic deformation
Sakarya
Duzce – Duzce Same as the first case above
Duzce -Bolu One shear wall up to third floor, one shear wall up to
second floor and one shear wall in the first floor
5 CONCLUSIONS
Evaluation and strengthening of existing RC buildings present a challenging work

because TEC-1998 states that this work has to be carried out according to this code. In
order to find the deficiencies and difficulties arises from the code requirements, a study
is performed on four and seven storey existing RC buildings making use of the ATC-
40 approach. The results show that the 1998 Earthquake Code gives a conservative
results when it is checked against the static pushover study. A nonlinear time domain
analysis is also carried out for the strengthened seven story building for five local
291
earthquakes. The results show that for the scaled down records the performance of the
scaled down buildings are at immediate occupancy. When the original records of the
earthquakes are used to see the near fault effects, the interstory drifts for one
earthquake of impulsive character are found to be causing more plastic hinge
developments in the strengthened building. It would be very necessary to add a section
to the current code about the near fault effects, since very many towns are along the
Northern and Eastern Anatolian Faults and also in the western part of Turkey.
6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors gratefully thank to Prof. Melike Altan and Prof. Metin Aydoğan of
Istanbul Technical University for providing some of the numerical data.
7 REFERENCES
ATC-40, (1996), Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, ATC,

California, USA.
Ayan, A.K., (2003), Performance Assessment of a Reinforced Concrete Building with
Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analysis, M.S. Thesis, Istanbul Technical
University, Istanbul, Turkey, (in Turkish).
Kesim, B., (2004), Performance Assessment of a Reinforced Concrete Building with
Static Pushover Analysis, M.S. Thesis, Istanbul Technical university, Istanbul,
Turkey, (in Turkish).
Turkey Earthquake Code, TEC-1998 (1998), Ministry of Construction, Ankara, (in
Turkish).
SAP2000 (2004), Structural Analysis Software, Computers and Structures Inc.,
Berkeley, CA, USA.
292
Seismic Retrofit Strategy for Under-designed RC Frame
Systems Using FRP Composites
G.M. Calvi1, S. Pampanin2, A. Pavese1, D. Bolognini3
1. Department of Structural Mechanics, University of Pavia, Italy
2. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
3. European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering, Pavia, Italy
ABSTRACT: The efficiency of a seismic retrofit intervention using externally bonded

FRP composites on existing reinforced concrete frame systems designed according to
pre-1970s standards, before the introduction of modern seismic code provisions, is
herein presented, based on analytical and experimental investigations on beam-column
subassemblies and frame systems. A multi-level retrofit strategy is adopted to achieve
the desired performance, based on hierarchy of strength considerations. The expected
sequence of events is visualised through demand-capacity curves within M-N perform-
ance domains. Quasi-static experimental tests on eight beam-column subassemblies, ei-
ther interior and exterior, and on two three-storey three-bays frame systems in their as-
built and CFRP retrofitted configurations, have been carried out confirming the feasi-
bility and efficiency of the adopted retrofit solution.
1 INTRODUCTION
Recent extensive experimental-analytical investigations on the seismic performance of

existing reinforced concrete frame buildings, designed for gravity loads only, as typi-
cally found in most seismic-prone countries before the introduction of adequate seis-
mic design code provisions in the 1970s (Aycardi et al., 1994; Beres et al., 1996, Ha-
kuto et al., 2000, Park, 2002; Pampanin et al., 2002; Calvi et al., 2002a,b), have
confirmed the expected inherent weaknesses of these systems as observed in past
earthquake events. As a consequence of poor reinforcement detailing, lack of trans-
verse reinforcement in the joint region, as well as absence of any capacity design prin-
ciples, brittle failure mechanisms were observed. At a local level, most of the damage
is likely to occur in the beam-column joint panel zone while the formation of soft-story
mechanisms can greatly impair the global structural performance of these RC frame
systems.
An appropriate retrofit strategy is therefore required, which is capable of providing
adequate protection to the joint region while modifying the hierarchy of strengths be-
tween the different components of the beam-column connections according to a capac-
ity design philosophy.
Alternative strengthening/retrofit solutions have been studied in the past and adopted
in practical applications, ranging from conventional techniques (i.e. braces, jacketing
or infills, Sugano, 1996) to more recent approaches including non-metallic haunch
293
connection (Pampanin and Christopoulos), base isolation or use of supplemental

damping devices. In the past decade, an increased interest has been observed in the use
of advanced non-metallic materials, including Shape Memory Alloys, SMA (Dolce et
al. 2000), or Fibre Reinforced Polymers, FRP (Gergely et al. 2000; fib 2001; Prota et
al. 2002).
In this contribution, the feasibility and efficiency of a retrofitting intervention using
FRP composite materials, according to a multi-level performance-based approach will
be presented, based on experimental quasi-static test on eight beam-column joint sub-
assemblies and two three-storey three-bays frame system in their as-built and CFRP
retrofitted configurations.
2 SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF EXISTING UNDER-DESIGNED FRAME SYSTEMS
The first phase of the research project involved the assessment, through analytical and
experimental investigations, of the seismic vulnerability of existing reinforced concrete
frame systems, primarily designed for gravity-loads as typical of the period between
1950s&1970s, before the introduction of modern seismic design provisions in the mid-
1970s. Quasi-static tests on 2/3 scaled beam-column joint subassemblies (exterior
knee- or tee- joints as well as interior cruciform, Fig. 1) and on a three-storey three
bays frame system, were performed at the Structural Mechanics Laboratory of the Uni-
versity of Pavia. Particular attention was given to the vulnerability of the panel zone
region.
An overview of the results will be herein given while more details can be found in
Pampanin et al. (2002) and Calvi et al. (2002b).
200
Actuator Beam Actuator Column stirrups
200 Section A-A
Ø 4 @ 135 mm
Column stirrups
2 Ø 8 + 2 Ø 12 B B
1000
Ø 4 @ 135 mm Beam stirrups Ø 4

B B
Beam stirrups Ø 4
@ 115 mm
1000
Beam stirrups @ 115 mm

A
Ø 4 @ 115 mm
330
330
A
200
2330
330
1500 1500 A
A 2 Ø 8 + 2 Ø 12 Beam
1500 Column
1000
Column Section A-A Section B-B

1000
Column stirrups Section B-B 2Ø8 + 3Ø8

Ø 4 @ 135 mm 3Ø8 2 Ø 12
200
330
200
200
200 200
2Ø8 + 3Ø8
3Ø8 1 Ø 12
Figure 1. Geometry and reinforcement details in exterior joint specimen T1 and

interior specimen C2
The testing loading protocol for the beam-column subassemblies (set-up shown in
Fig. 2) consisted of increased level of lateral top displacements (series of three cycles)
combined with a variation of axial load as a function of the lateral force, as would oc-
cur in a beam-column subassembly during the sway of the frame. The importance of
294
accounting for the variation of axial load for an appropriate assessment and retrofit
strategy will be emphasised in the following paragraphs.
The exterior tee-joint specimens showed (at both subassembly and frame system
level) a particular brittle hybrid failure mechanism given by joint shear damage com-
bined with slippage of beam longitudinal (plain round) bars within the joint region
with concentrated compressive force at the end-hook anchorage. As a result, a concrete
“wedge” tended to spall off (Fig. 3 right side), leading to a brittle local failure and loss
of bearing-load capacity (Fig. 3 left side).
Conversely, the interior joint specimens exhibited significant resources of plastic de-
formation (Fig. 13c dashed line), even without specific ductile structural details, due to
the occurrence of flexural damage in the column critical sections.
support frame
reaction wall
hydraulic
jack load
cell
pinned arm
load base
cell hinge
Figure 2. Example of test set-up of an external subassembly
Top Displacement (mm)

-80 -40 0 40 80
12
Joint shear cracking
Specimen T1 @ pt=0.15 √f’c
8
Lateral Force (kN)
-4 +
-8
Joint shear cracking
@ pt=0.19 √f’c
-12
-3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Top Drift (%)

Figure 3. Hysteresis loop of exterior joint specimen T1 and shear hinge mechanism
295
The experimental quasi-static tests on the three storey-three bays frame system
shown in Fig. 4 (more details can be found in Calvi et al., 2002b) confirmed the high
vulnerability of the panel zone region as observed at a subassembly level (particularly
in exterior joints, Fig. 5) and the tendency to develop undesirable global mechanisms,
due to the absence of an adequate hierarchy of strength.
Figure 4. Three storey test-frame in as Figure 5 – Frame damage in the as built

built configuration configuration at 1.6% top drift
The concentration of shear deformation in the joint region can activate a “shear
hinge” mechanism (Pampanin et al. 2002), reducing the deformation demand on adja-
cent structural members and thus postponing the occurrence of undesirable soft-storey
mechanism (see Fig. 6).
Top
displacement
Shear Hinges
Plastic Hinges
Figure 6. Frame response global mechanism: plastic hinges and shear hinges (top
drift 1.6%, Calvi et al. 2002b)
296
A critical discussion on the effects of damage and failure of beam-column joints in

the seismic assessment of frame systems has been given in Calvi et al. (2002a). Limit
states based on joint shear deformations have recently been defined and are reported in
Pampanin et al. (2003). Based on a detailed assessment of the local damage and corre-
sponding global mechanisms, a more reliable seismic rehabilitation strategy can be de-
fined.
3 PERFORMANCE-BASED RETROFIT STRATEGY
According to a multi-level retrofit strategy approach suggested by Pampanin & Chris-

topoulos (2003), two levels of retrofits can be considered, depending on the typology
of the joint (interior or exterior) as well as on whether or not interior joints can be fully
upgraded. A complete retrofit would consist of a full upgrade by protecting all joint
panel zones and developing plastic hinges in beams while columns are protected ac-
cording to capacity design principles. A partial retrofit would consist of protecting ex-
terior joints, forming plastic hinges in beams framing into exterior columns; column
hinging and minor joint cracking would be allowed in interior joints.
The evaluation of the hierarchy of strength and the expected sequence of events
within a beam-column joint can be carried out through comparison of capacity and
demand curves within a M-N (moment-axial load) performance-domain as proposed by
Pampanin et al. (2004). Fig. 7 shows the M-N performance domain adopted to predict
the sequence of events and level of damage in the joint panel zone expected for the as-
built exterior specimen T1.
25
F>0 F>0 F<0 F<0
4
20 3
8 2
7
Moment [kNm]
15
6
10 5 1
Beam - ultimate mom.

5 Beam - yielding mom.
Column - ultimate mom.
Column - yielding mom.
Joint - pt=0.29*f'c^0.5
Joint - pt=0.19*f'c^0.5
0
0 -25 -50 -75 -100 -125 -150 -175 -200
Axial load [kN]
Figure 7. Evaluation of hierarchy of strengths and sequence of events:

M-N Performance-Domain (as built T1 specimen)
The capacities of beam, column and joints are referred to a given limit state (e.g. for
joints: cracking, equivalent “yielding” or extensive damage and collapse) and evalu-
297
ated in terms of equivalent moment in the column at that stage, based on equilibrium
considerations within the beam-column joint specimen. While the evaluation of M-N
curves for beams and columns is a relatively simple task, the definition of an “equiva-
lent” curve to represent the joint panel zone represent a more challenging task (Pam-
panin et al. 2003).
4 EVALUATION OF FRP STRENGTHENING EFFECTS
The effects of a retrofit intervention with FRP composite materials, in the form of ex-
ternally bonded reinforcement (EBR), on beam-column joint, in terms of flexural or
shear capacity in beams, columns and panel zone region were evaluated by adopting
and properly modifying existing procedure available in literature to account for
debonding phenomena as well as, more importantly, for the variation of axial load onto
the joint panel zone behaviour (critical issue typically neglected).
In particular, the evaluation of the shear strengthening effects on the joint was based
on modifications and extension of the procedure originally proposed by Antonopoulos
& Triantafillou (2002). According to these integrations, the joint shear contribution
provided by the FRP can be separately evaluated in terms of joint principal tensile-
shear deformation and directly considered within a typical strength degradation curves
of an as-built joint (Pampanin et al., 2003, 2004) as shown in Fig. 8.
0.8 Priestley model
Not strengthened joint
0.7 T1 R12 (N=200kN)
T1 R12 (N=100kN)
T1 R12 (N=0kN)
0.6 FRP (N=200kN)
FRP (N=100kN)
FRP (N=0kN)
0.5
Pt / (f'c)^0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
γ [rad]
Figure 8. Joint strength degradation curve: contributions of FRP and concrete.

(exterior speciment T1)
Uni-directional carbon fibre laminates (high-modulus CFRP, Table 1) were adopted

in the configurations shown in Fig. 9 ÷ 10 for the exterior and interior joint subassem-
blies, respectively. Similar solutions were adopted for the beam-column joints within
the retrofitted frame system, whose sequence of events was evaluated according to the
aforementioned procedure.
298
Table 1: Properties of high modulus carbon fibres with unidirectional fabric

Effective Characteristic Characteristic
Ultimate
Density thickness tensile modulus
Fibre strain
[kg/m3] of 1 layer strength of elasticity
[%]
[mm] [MPa] [MPa]
High
modulus 1820 0.165 3000 390000 0.8
carbon
Vertical FRP laminates were used on the external face of the column in both interior
and exterior joints (2 layers per side) in order to increase the column flexural capacity
as well as the joint shear strength. In addition, in the exterior joint specimen, a U-shape
horizontal laminate, wrapped around the exterior face of the specimen at the joint level,
was used to increase the joint shear strength as well as prevent the expulsion of a con-
crete wedge.
An adequately limited anchorage length within the beam was calculated in order to
guarantee sufficient shear strengthening in the joint without excessively increasing the
beam capacity (see Fig. 7).
200
D 1 1000x75 mm 130
1000
1330x130 mm
75
C 1 1000x75 mm
130
B
D 1000
1330
75
C
B 2+2
A G H
200
200
1330
260
330
A 1 1000x260 mm
200
260
E
1260x75 mm
1260x75 mm
1000
F E 1 1000x75 mm
1000
1260
1260
75
F 1 1000x75 mm
1
1
G
1000
75
75 75
Figure 9 FRP-Retrofit solution for exterior joint T1B
200
B 1 1000x75 mm
1000 130
75
1330x130 mm
130
A
C 1 1000x75 mm
B
C 1000
500
75
1330
75
200
A 2+2
330
75
200
D 1 1000x75 mm
500
D
E
1000
75
E 1 1000x75 mm
1000
75
Figure 10. FRP-Retrofit solution for interior joint C3
299
Although the evaluation of strengthening effects was carried out including debond-
ing effects (when non-conservative), additional smaller strips were used to wrap the
main FRP laminates and provide proper anchorage. In the case of the interior joint, the
FRP laminate crossing the joint was intentionally left unprotected from debonding in
the joint panel zone region.
The target performance of the retrofit solution was controlled using the proposed
procedure and M-N performance-domain as shown in Fig. 11 for the exterior specimen
T1B
30 F>0 F<0
F<0
F>0 3
25 4
2
20 8
Moment [kNm]
7 1
15 6
5
10
Beam yielding - 1FRP
Beam yielding - NS
5 Column yielding - 2FRP
Column yielding - NS
Strengthened joint
N.S. Joint - pt=0.19*f'c^0.5
0
0 -25 -50 -75 -100 -125 -150 -175 -200
Axial load [kN]
Figure 11. Evaluation of hierarchy of strengths and sequence of events:

M-N Performance-Domain (Retrofitted T1B joint)
5 EXPERIMENTAL OBSERVATIONS
The results of the experimental quasi-static tests on three beam column joints in the ret-
rofitted configurations (namely T1B, T2B, and C4) provided very satisfactory confir-
mations of the efficiency of the adopted retrofit solution as well as of the reliability of
the analytical procedure developed to design the intervention and assess the expected
sequence of events and performance. In all cases, the retrofit objective based on a
multi/level retrofit strategy was achieved, leading to a significant improvement in the
behaviour of the subassemblies, which ultimately imply an enhanced behaviour of the
frame system (adequate global inelastic mechanism). As shown in Fig. 12, a properly
designed FRP-retrofit solution can protect and avoid the formation of a brittle shear
hinge mechanism and re-established a more desirable hierarchy of internal strengths
and sequence of events, enforcing a beam plastic hinge mechanism (total retrofit). An
improved and more stable hysteresis behaviour was observed with increased ductility
and energy dissipation capacity (Fig. 13).
300
Figure 12: Alternative damage mechanisms; a) shear hinge (as-built T1);

(b) beam plastic hinge (retrofitted T1B)
Top displacement [mm] Top displacement [mm]
100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80
20 15
10
10
5
Lateral force [kN]
Lateral force [kN]
0 0
-5
-10
Specimen T1 -10 Specimen T2

not strengthened not strengthened
Specimen T1B Specimen T2B
strengthened strengthened
-20 -15
5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4
Top Drift [%] Top Drift [%]
Top displacement [mm]

100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100
30
20
10
Lateral force [kN]
-10
-20
Specimen C4
not strengthened
Specimen C3
strengthened
-30
5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5
Top Drift [%]
Figure 13 Comparison of as-built and FRP-retrofitted hsyteresis response: exte-

rior joints T1, T2 and interior joint C4
Similar considerations can be derived for the interior joint specimen C4, Fig. 13,
where the partial retrofit strategy led to a controlled debonding of the column vertical
301
fibres crossing the joint. The formation of flexural damage in the column was thus
postponed. In addition to the increased overall strength, the FRP provided a favourable
confinement effects in the column plastic hinge region avoiding the premature crushing
and spalling of concrete cover, protecting from strength degradation, buckling of the
longitudinal bars and consequent failure.
Figure 14 –FRP retrofitted frame before testing and at 2% drift
The global behaviour of the retrofitted frame systems, followed the expectations and
analytical predictions. As shown in Fig. 15 ÷ 16, the frame response was characterized
by plastic hinge in the exterior beams, with no damage in the beam-column joints, pro-
tected by the FRP. Debonding of the FRP sheets with combined interior joint cracking
and flexural damage in the interior joint beams occurred.
Top Drift [%]
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
80
60
40
20
Base Shear [kN]
-20
-40
-60
-80
-120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120
Top Displacement [mm]
Figure 15 – Global hysteresis behavior (base shear top drift) of as-built and retrofitted frames
302
As a consequence of the inverted hierarchy of strength at least in the exterior beams

(partial retrofit), a more desirable inelastic mechanism formed, leading to higher
strength and dissipation capacity (see more stable hysteresis loop) up to higher level of
drift (2%, Fig. 15 ÷ 16) before observing any strength reduction mainly due to P-D ef-
fects.
Figure 16 – Damage observations in the retrofitted configuration (2% top drift)
6 CONCLUSIVE REMARKS
The preliminary results of quasi-static tests on beam-column joint specimens and three
storey frame systems, designed for gravity load only and retrofitted with CFRP lami-
nates, provided very satisfactory confirmation of the efficiency of similar solutions for
existing buildings.
A multi-level retrofit strategy has been proposed and implemented depending on the
subassemblies type and structural details to achieve the desired performance with a
feasible intervention. Simple analytical procedure can be adopted to evaluate and con-
trol the sequence of events, based on the use of M-N performance-domain.
Ultimately, as mentioned in the introduction, issues of accessibility of the joint re-
gion and invasiveness will be faced in real applications. It is worth noting that a typical
plan configuration of existing buildings designed for gravity load only between the
1950s and 1970s might consist of frames running in one direction only with lightly re-
inforced slab (e.g. hollow clay bricks) in the orthogonal direction, the latter being very
303
typical of the construction practice in Mediterranean countries. In these circumstances,

the adoption of the proposed retrofit intervention can be somehow facilitated and less
invasive, when compared to more recently designed buildings with frames in both di-
rections and cast-in-situ concrete slabs.
7 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank the MAC S.p.a. Treviso for supplying materials and techni-
cal assistance. The assistance of the postgraduate students Mr. Andrea Vecchietti and
Mr. Roberto Nassi, during different phases of the project, is also kindly acknowledged.
8 REFERENCES
Aycardi, L. E., Mander, J. B., Reinhorn, A. M. 1994. Seismic Resistance of R.C. Frame
Structures Designed Only for Gravity Loads: Experimental Performance of Subassemblages,
ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 91, No.5, 552-563.
Antonopoulos, C. P., Triantafillou, T. C. 2002. Analysis of FRP-strengthened RC beam-
column joints, Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 6, no.1, pp. 41-51.
Beres, A., Pessiki, S., White, R., Gergely, P. 1996. Implications of Experimental on the
Seismic Behaviour of Gravity Load Designed RC Beam-Column Connections, Earthquake
Spectra, Vol. 12, No.2, May, pp. 185-198.
Calvi, G. M., Magenes, G., Pampanin, S. 2002a. Relevance of Beam-Column Damage and
Collapse in RC Frame Assessment. J. of Earthq. Engng (JEE), Special Issue 1, pp.75-100
Calvi, G. M., Magenes, G., Pampanin, S. 2002b. Experimental Test on a Three Storey R.C.
Frame Designed for Gravity Only, 12th ECEE, London, paper n. 727.
Dolce, M., Cardone, D., Marnetto, R. 2000. Implementation and testing of passive control
devices based on shape memory alloys. Earthq. Engng. & Struct. Dyn., 29, 7, 945-968.
fib 2001. Externally Bonded FRP Reinforcement for RC structures, fib Bulletin n.14,
Lausanne.
Gergely, J., Pantelides, C. P., Reaveley, L. D. 2000. Shear Strengthening of RC T-Joints
Using CFRP composites, Journal of Composite Constructions, ASCE, 4(2), 56-64.
Hakuto, S., Park, R., Tanaka, H. 2000. Seismic Load Tests on Interior and Exterior Beam-
Column Joints with Substandard Reinforcing Details, ACI Struct. J., 97(1), 11-25.
Pampanin, S. Calvi, G. M., Moratti, M. 2002. Seismic Behaviour of R.C. Beam-Column
Joints Designed for Gravity Loads, 12th ECEE, London, paper n. 726.
Pampanin, S., Christopoulos, C. 2003. Non-invasive Retrofit of Existing RC Frames De-
signed for Gravity Loads only, fib2003 Symp. Concrete Struct. in Seismic Regions, Athens.
Pampanin, S., Magenes, G., Carr, A. 2003. Modelling of Shear Hinge Mechanism in Poorly
Detailed RC Beam-Column Joints, fib Symposium Athens, paper n. 171.
Park, R. 2002. A Summary of Results of Simulated Seismic Load Tests on Reinforced Con-
crete Beam-Column Joints, Beams and Columns with Substandard Reinforcing Details. Journal
of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1-27.
Prota, A., Manfredi, G., Nanni, A., Cosenza, E. 2002. Capacity Assessment of GLD RC
Frames Strengthened with FRP, 12ECEE, London, paper n. 241.
Sugano, S. 1996. State of the art in Techniques for Rehabilitation of Buildings, 11WCEE,
Acapulco, Paper no. 2175.
304
European Commission
EUR 21768 EN – DG Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen
Seismic Performance Assessment and Rehabilitation
F A R D IS, MICHAE L, NE G RO , P A O LO
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

2005 – 314 pp. – 21 x 29.7 cm
EUR - Scientific and Technical Research series; ISSN 1018-5593
ISBN 92-894-9923-0
Abstract
Proceedings of the International Workshop Seismic Performance Assessment and Rehabilitation,
an event to honour the memory of Prof. Jean Donea
The mission of the JRC is to provide customer-driven scientific and technical support for the
conception, development, implementation and monitoring of EU policies. As a service of the European
Commission, the JRC functions as a reference centre of science and technology for the Union. Close
to the policy-making process, it serves the common interest of the Member States, while being
independent of special interests, whether private or national.

Rehabilitacion de Construcciones Existente Cogido Union Europea

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Rehabilitacion de Construcciones Existente Cogido Union Europea

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen

European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA)

An event to honour the memory of

2005 EUR 21768 EN

Neither the European Commission nor any person

A great deal of additional information on the

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publication of the European Communities

FULL-SCALE BIDIRECTIONAL PsD TESTING OF THE TORSIONALLY

The SPEAR (Seismic Performance Assessment and Rehabilitation) research project

Michael Fardis, Paolo Negro

Ayhan ALTINYOLLAR, ELSA Laboratory, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy

Güney ÖZCEBE, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

2 A BRIEF LOOK AT THE PAST

Fig. 2 LNEC Lisbon: dynamic test in progress

Fig. 4 One of 4 eccentric-mass exciters on the Wimbleball concrete gravity dam

Fig. 5 Bristol/Athens Testpiece for shaking table performance studies

3 THE MORE RECENT PAST

Fig. 6 Uni-axial control using displacement feedback

Fig. 10 NEFOREEE Theme 3: A seismic qualification test performed at ENEL-HYDRO and

Fig. 11 Sub-structure testing of 3-pier bridge at JRC Ispra

Fig. 13 Multiple-support input test at ISMES on a 3-pier irregular bridge

4 THE STUDY OF EUROPEAN SHAKING TABLE CHARACTERISTICS

− The use of shaking tables to study non-linear behaviour of testpieces ;

Fig. 14 NEFOREEE Theme 5: ERC Bristol multiple support excitation study

5 THE SHAKING TABLE CONTROL PROBLEM

5.2.1 Uniaxial Input

− Measurements at the Testpiece. The parameters to be measured at the testpiece

5.2.2 Multi-axis Input

6 CURRENT PIONEERING EUROPEAN EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH

6.4 Theme4: Substructuring on shaking tables (Bristol)

framework within which dynamically substructured test systems can be modelled

6.6 Theme 6: Continuous pseudodynamic testing with non-linear sub-structuring

− If the analytical structure is complex, the analytical process is unable to perform

7 THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION

7.2 The U.S.

− An IT infrastructure linking the 15 shared experimental facilities

Fig. 15 Miki City – five of the ten horizontal actuators

2 SEISMIC SAFETY SCREENING METHOD (SSSM)

Figure 1. Bi-linear model of elasto-plastic response.

Based on this assumption, the below equation can be written:

where R = ductility index.

Seismic index of a building, Is value, is calculated by using Equation (5):

Table 1. Classification of vertical members

P = (n + 1 ) ∗ (C sc + a 2 C w + a3C c ) ∗ Rsc (8)

3.1.1 Strength index, C

0.4bDf c > N > 0;

0 > N > N min ;

W M u = a t σ y .lW + 0.5∑ (aWyσ Wy ).lW + 0.5 N .lW (14)

4 REQUIRED SEISMIC CAPACITY INDEX, ID

The required seismic index, ID should be calculated by Equation (17).

for local soil conditions; and U = index for usage.

5 PILOT REGION STUDY

Cumulative Frequency Distrubution

Table 2. V/W and P values obtained by pushover analysis and SSSM

Table 3. Evaluation of the buildings using SSSM

Building Seismic index, Required seismic index,

2 OUTLINE OF THE EARTHQUAKES AND STRONG-MOTION RECORDS

Table1 List of shocks which Si.max. is 5 or more

Fig.1 The middle area of Niigata Prefecture

Fig.2 The epicenters of shocks which maximum seismic intensity

Table 2 Measured Results of Mainshock and an Aftershock

Accelerometer Seismic Maximum Acceleration

Fig. 3 Acceleration Records of Mainshock Fig. 4 Acceleration Records of Mainshock

Fig. 5 Acceleration Records of Mainshock Fig. 6 Acceleration Records of an Aftershock